Ethan Schiff

The plaintiffs, representing a class of donors to a failed charitable tax shelter program, brought an action for professional negligence against the law firms and valuation firm that provided services to the program's promoter.

The professional defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and that they owed no duty of care to the non-client class members.

The court held the claims were not statute-barred, as the limitation period did not begin to run until the Tax Court declared the program a sham.

The court granted summary judgment to the law firms, finding they explicitly limited their undertakings to their client and owed no duty of care to the class members.

However, the court denied summary judgment to the valuation firm, finding a triable issue existed regarding whether it undertook a duty to the class members by authorizing its valuation report to be used in their tax appeals.

The defendant in a proposed class action moved under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to dismiss the action for delay, on the basis that the plaintiff failed to file a final and complete certification motion record within one year of commencing the action.

The plaintiff filed a certification record three days after the one-year deadline and, in any event, the record was incomplete as it contained no litigation plan — an indispensable requirement under s. 5(1)(e)(ii) of the CPA.

The plaintiff also moved to amend the Statement of Claim and substitute two new representative plaintiffs, but both proposed plaintiffs demonstrated no meaningful understanding of or engagement with the litigation plan requirement, effectively leaving counsel to litigate on his own.

The Court of Appeal had definitively eliminated any judicial discretion to relieve parties of the strict requirements of s. 29.1.

The motion to dismiss was granted; the motion to amend and substitute was denied.

The appellants sought certification of a proposed class action on behalf of approximately 15,000 Canadian major junior hockey players from 1975 to the present, alleging systemic abuse including physical and sexual assaults, bullying, harassment, and hazing.

The class action named 78 defendants across four major junior hockey leagues and sought to hold the leagues and teams liable for systemic negligence in failing to adopt and enforce effective abuse-prevention policies.

The motion judge denied certification, finding the action unmanageable due to its unprecedented scope and complexity, and that no viable litigation plan had been presented.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: that they had disclosed a viable cause of action, that common issues existed, and that the class action was the preferable procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellants had viable claims and the motion judge applied an overly stringent test to the common issues requirement, the action was unmanageable and therefore not the preferable procedure.

The court emphasized that the proposed class action was far broader and more complex than previous systemic negligence class actions, involving 78 defendants across 13 jurisdictions, events spanning 50 years, and complex conflicts-of-law issues.

The appellants' attempt to fundamentally alter their case on appeal by dropping 74 defendants was rejected as impermissible.

This decision concerns a motion to quash an appeal of a "Transition Order" that converted a proposed class action into multiple joinder actions.

The moving parties (defendants) argued the Transition Order was interlocutory and thus appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.

The responding parties (plaintiffs) contended the order was final in some aspects or, alternatively, so interrelated with other appeals (refusal of class certification and dismissal of action against certain parties) that the Court of Appeal should hear it under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion to quash, finding a significant interrelationship between the appeals, which meant leave would have inevitably been granted, allowing the Court of Appeal to assume jurisdiction.

The appellant, Amtim Capital Inc., appealed the dismissal of its claim against Appliance Recycling Centers of America (ARCA) for alleged underpayment due to improper allocation of head office expenses.

The trial judge found Amtim failed to discharge its onus of proving ARCA breached the agreements or that the expense allocation was not in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, including the refusal to draw adverse inferences against ARCA for alleged disclosure deficiencies, noting Amtim's failure to pursue further production motions or utilize contractual access rights.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs.

Following the settlement of the main class proceeding, the defendant and third party plaintiff brought a consent motion to dismiss the third party claims against the remaining third parties.

The court granted the order dismissing the third party action with prejudice and without costs.

This decision concerns Phase 4 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The original proposed class action, brought by former and current major junior hockey players alleging abuse, was not certified.

The Section 7 Plan aims to transition the proposed class action into up to 60 individual joinder actions.

The court approved Version 4 of the Draft Section 7 Plan, which outlines procedures for notice, opt-in, commencement of actions, case management, and discovery.

A key contentious issue resolved in this phase concerned the staying of third-party claims until the completion of the main actions.

This decision is Phase 3 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court is finalizing the Draft Section 7 Plan, which facilitates the transition of a proposed class action, previously denied certification, into up to 60 individual joinder actions against various hockey leagues and teams.

The plan addresses notice dissemination, the approval of contingency fee agreements, the management of third-party claims by staying them under Rule 29.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the potential for severance of actions.

The court also proposes a consensual settlement track for modest claims as an alternative to litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Rule 7 Order pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of their certification motion for a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in amateur hockey.

The court reviewed and settled the revised Draft Section 7 Plan, which transitions the proposed class action into up to 60 joinder actions against the defendant hockey teams and leagues.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-in procedures, and case management provisions, with minor revisions to protect player privacy and ensure efficient administration.

Following the dismissal of a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in the Canadian Hockey League, the plaintiffs brought a motion under section 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve a plan to transition the proceeding into multiple joinder actions.

The court reviewed the competing Section 7 Plans submitted by the plaintiffs and defendants and found both to be procedurally flawed and overreaching.

The court proposed its own Draft Section 7 Plan designed to facilitate the commencement of up to 60 joinder actions while respecting the court's jurisdictional limits and the parties' procedural rights.

The motion was adjourned to a second phase for the parties to revise and discuss the court's draft plan.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $354,759.57 following a certification motion in a class action regarding allegedly defective water pumps in Ford vehicles.

The defendants argued that each party should bear their own costs due to the plaintiffs' limited success, as only one of fifteen causes of action was certified and the class size was significantly reduced.

The defendants also sought costs for their successful preliminary motion to strike evidence.

The court awarded the defendants $16,612.70 for the preliminary motion.

For the certification motion, the court found that a reduction in the plaintiffs' costs was justified to discourage overinclusive class membership, awarding the plaintiffs $197,750 in fees payable forthwith and $97,537.56 in disbursements payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a $1.1 billion class action against Ford Motor Co. alleging that certain vehicles contained a defective internal water pump that could cause catastrophic engine failure.

The court analyzed the claims under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Maple Leaf Foods, the court struck the claims for pure economic loss for class members whose water pumps had not yet failed, finding no imminent danger.

The court also refused to certify the breach of contract, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims.

The court certified the action solely for design negligence for class members who actually experienced a water pump failure resulting in property damage or personal injury.

In a proposed class action regarding allegedly defective water pumps in Ford vehicles, the defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the plaintiffs' proposed class counsel.

The affidavit attached unverified online complaints from a U.S. database.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the complaints were inadmissible hearsay and that their prejudicial effect outweighed any minimal probative value they might have had for imputing knowledge of the defect to the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former investment advisor and his corporate entities for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and for summary judgment against the mutual fund dealer, FundEx, on the basis of vicarious liability.

The court granted default judgment against the advisor and his companies, finding the elements of civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty were established based on deemed admissions.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment against FundEx, concluding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the advisor's wrongful acts were sufficiently connected to his authorized conduct to impose vicarious liability, and whether the plaintiffs' claims were discoverable outside the limitation period.