Evatt Merchant

This is a motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning automobile airbags that had been recalled.

The action, which had not been certified, sought compensation for pure economic loss.

Due to developments in case law, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification on pure economic loss for defective products, the litigation risk increased, and the prospects for certification and substantial economic recovery diminished.

Class Counsel sought leave to discontinue the action with prejudice and without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the test for discontinuance was satisfied, and putative class members were not prejudiced, as limitation periods remained suspended.

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to answer two questions asked during examinations for discovery.

The first question related to assumptions of fact pled by the respondent, which the Court found the appellant had now answered.

The second question asked the appellant to distinguish his facts from a prior Tax Court decision.

The Court found the original question improperly required a legal analysis, but allowed the respondent to serve a list of purported findings of fact from the prior case for the appellant to address.

The motion was granted in part, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a certification order for a class action arising from an infection control lapse at an endoscopy clinic.

The plaintiff sought compensation for the enhanced risk of infection and the psychological trauma of receiving a public health notification, despite testing negative for any blood-borne diseases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that a claim for damages based solely on an increased risk of harm, without actual injury, is not a legally viable cause of action.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on issues including whether the motion judge erred by certifying liability for increased risk, causation and damages, whether a class proceeding remains the preferable procedure, and whether a family class should have been certified.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against an endoscopy clinic and its operator following a public health notice regarding infection control lapses.

The notice advised former patients to be tested for blood-borne diseases.

The plaintiff, who tested negative, sought compensation for exposure to enhanced risk of infection, shock, trauma, and inconvenience.

The court found that the claims raised genuine common issues, including duty of care, standard of care, and foreseeability of harm.

The court also determined that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims of the 6,800 affected individuals.

The certification motion was granted.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding arising from a city bus crash.

The Certification Judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, noting the plaintiff's strategic choice to pursue complex systemic negligence claims while ignoring direct claims against the bus driver and the city as owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Certification Judge's discretionary preferability analysis.

Leave to appeal the costs order of the certification motion was also denied.

The applicant, a member of the Ocean Man First Nation, sought judicial review in the form of a writ of quo warranto to remove the chief and council from office.

She argued that the chief was suspended at a membership meeting and that the council had invalidly extended its term.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no legal basis or broad community consensus for the purported suspension, and that the council validly extended its term pursuant to the First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Ottawa arising from a deadly bus accident at Westboro Station.

The proposed action was structured to plead systemic negligence in transit design and operation while avoiding claims against the city as the owner of the vehicle and employer of the driver.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as it ignored readily available compensation under the motor vehicle insurance regime and numerous individual actions had already been commenced.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to certify a proposed class action against a medical clinic for infection control lapses during endoscopies.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that the appellant failed to establish an identifiable class of two or more people who suffered harm.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by requiring evidence of actual harm to multiple people at the certification stage, rather than just an objective basis to identify class members.

The matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the remaining certification criteria.

The appellants, claimants who suffered abuse at St. Anne's Indian Residential School in Ontario, filed a Request for Directions (RFD) regarding the respondent's disclosure obligations under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The Eastern Administrative Judge (the Ontario Supervising Judge) recused himself and directed that the RFD be heard by the British Columbia Supervising Judge, relying on the Court Administration Protocol (CAP).

The appellants appealed, arguing the RFD must be heard in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the CAP contains mandatory language requiring RFDs involving relief for a particular class to be directed to the supervising court with jurisdiction over that class.

As the appellants are members of the Ontario class, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction.

The matter was remitted to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to assign a different judge.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an order of Belobaba J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants, who operated an endoscopy clinic where an infection control lapse occurred.

The proposed class included patients who underwent procedures between 2002 and 2011.

Despite extensive public notification by public health authorities, the plaintiff could only identify one other potential class member, whose medical issues lacked expert evidence linking them to the clinic.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish some basis in fact for the existence of an identifiable class of two or more persons.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

The applicants, JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other ongoing litigation.

JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. moved for orders to file Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) leave applications but suspend further proceedings.

Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited sought a blanket stay of all proceedings and limitation periods.

The Quebec class action plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought to partially lift the stay.

The court affirmed its broad jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 to stay all actions, including appellate proceedings and limitation periods.

The court dismissed the motion by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and granted Imperial Tobacco's motion, finding that a blanket stay best preserved the status quo and facilitated a global resolution for all stakeholders.