Eric Block

The plaintiff brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action in Ontario regarding illnesses allegedly caused by the herbicide Gramoxone.

The plaintiff, a resident of British Columbia, preferred to proceed as a class member in a parallel action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance, arguing it was a tactical move to avoid litigating in Ontario.

The court granted the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to putative class members and noting that the defendants' concerns could be addressed through costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $71,807.32 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes, approve a $105,000 settlement, and approve class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged that the defendants misclassified event staffing workers as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of minimum employment standards.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable given the significant risk of non-recovery due to the corporate defendant ceasing operations.

Class counsel fees of $50,454.50 plus disbursements were approved, and the representative plaintiff was awarded a $4,000 honorarium.

Following the dismissal of the defendant insurers' motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions pending the determination of certification in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs requested $86,589, which the court found excessive for a relatively simple stay motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) and considering proportionality, the court fixed costs at $35,000 all-inclusive, payable by the defendant insurers.

The defendant insurers brought a motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions for COVID-19 business interruption losses pending the certification of a related class action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was overlap in issues and facts, staying the individual actions would cause significant injustice and prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had legitimate reasons for pursuing their claims individually and expeditiously.

The applicant and respondent were partners in a joint venture to develop a condominium.

The applicant exercised a shotgun buy/sell provision, and the respondent elected to purchase the applicant's interest.

The respondent failed to close, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic downturn frustrated the contract and prevented it from obtaining financing.

The court rejected the frustration defence, finding that economic downturns and restrictive lending are inherent risks that do not radically alter the contractual obligations.

The court granted the application and ordered specific performance, noting that damages would be an inadequate remedy.

Following dismissal of a securities class action leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act, the successful defendant sought substantial partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that the case raised a novel legal issue and that no costs should be awarded under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected this characterization, finding the claim to be a conventional secondary market misrepresentation action and concluding that the leave motion lacked merit.

Applying the Civil Rules Committee Grid rates and reducing certain disbursements, the court fixed costs at $170,000 all-inclusive payable by the plaintiff.

The moving parties sought an order restraining a private investigator from disclosing or assisting others in disclosing documents and information obtained through the discovery process in related civil litigation.

The investigator, who was not a party to the action, had obtained thousands of documents produced on discovery and had disseminated some of them to third parties, including media outlets, and moved the documents outside the jurisdiction.

The court considered the scope and purpose of the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and authorities recognizing that the rule protects discovery material from collateral use.

It held that the court has jurisdiction to restrain third parties who knowingly obtain and use discovery documents contrary to the rule.

Given the investigator’s deliberate conduct in soliciting and disseminating the documents and attempting to evade court authority, a restraining order was warranted.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring an action against Manulife Financial Corporation and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of Manulife's risk management practices and failed to disclose its massive unhedged exposure to equity market risk prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial, and certified the action as a class proceeding, certifying seven common issues.