Erin Lynda Crochetière

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff sued after an OPP vehicle struck his arm while he was riding a bicycle at dusk, alleging negligence, unlawful detention, Charter breaches, chronic injury, income loss, future care costs, special damages, and punitive damages.

The court found the defendant liable for the collision but held the plaintiff 40% contributorily negligent for riding a black bicycle in dark clothing without the fixed lights and reflectors required by the Highway Traffic Act.

Applying the Grant and MacDonald frameworks, the court held there was no detention and therefore no breach of ss. 9, 10(a), or 10(b) of the Charter, and no Charter damages under Ward.

Applying the Insurance Act threshold and O. Reg. 461/96 criteria, the court found the plaintiff failed to prove a permanent serious impairment, largely because of credibility concerns, inconsistent self-reporting, and surveillance evidence.

In the alternative, the court assessed general damages at $50,000, awarded $4,800 in future care costs and $12,806.90 in special damages, denied income-related and punitive claims, and awarded costs to the defendant.

The appellant, a third party, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the effect of a Pierringer Agreement on third- and fourth-party claims.

The agreement, entered into by the plaintiffs and a settling defendant, limited the plaintiffs' claims against remaining defendants to several liability.

The appellant argued this precluded the remaining defendant from pursuing its third-party claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Pierringer Agreement and the subsequent order, while limiting the plaintiffs' recovery against the remaining defendant to its several liability, did not affect the remaining defendant's ability to seek contribution from third parties.

The appellants appealed a judgment in a motor vehicle accident case where the trial judge admitted liability just before trial and the matter proceeded as a damages assessment before a jury.

The appellants contended that the trial judge failed to address transgressions by respondent's counsel, unfairly summarized evidence in jury instructions, and displayed reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's conduct was fair and balanced, that many complaints were not objected to at trial, and that the allegations of bias did not meet the high threshold required to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality.