Gannon Gault Beaulne

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 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.

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a class action: one to approve a settlement agreement with Graham Turner LLP, declare notice not required under s. 19 of the Class Proceedings Act, approve a notice plan for class members, and grant leave to remove Emily Flammini as a representative plaintiff; and a second motion to approve Class Counsel's legal fees, the Class Proceedings Fund's levy, and the use of the remaining settlement fund for ongoing disbursements.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, found notice of the hearing unnecessary given the use of funds for disbursements, approved the proposed notice plan, and granted the removal of the representative plaintiff.

Class Counsel's fees and the CPF levy were approved, and the balance of the settlement fund was ordered to be held in trust for the class and applied towards ongoing disbursements.

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 appellants moved for a stay pending appeal of an order made under s. 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which directed the continuation of a proposed class action as individual actions following the refusal of certification.

The respondents argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to grant the stay, asserting the appeal properly lay to the Divisional Court.

The motion judge held that until a panel quashes the appeal, the court has jurisdiction under r. 63.02(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to grant a stay.

Given the respondents consented to a stay in principle, the court granted the stay of the s. 7 order but declined to stay the certification and dismissal orders.

The parties appeared before the court to settle the terms of an Order approving a Section 7 Plan under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of a certification motion.

The court resolved three minor disputes regarding the form and content of the Order.

The court declined to immediately name Epiq as the Administrator, allowed class counsel to receive potential plaintiffs' contact information to facilitate notice, and agreed with the defendants that the Order should refer to a 'section 7 Plan' rather than an 'individual issues protocol'.

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, 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.

This appeal concerns the admissibility of fresh evidence in an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's jurisdictional decision under the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the Divisional Court's ruling that such applications are hearings de novo, allowing parties to introduce evidence not previously before the arbitral tribunal, and that the "competence-competence" principle does not limit the court's fact-finding ability in this context.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's decision to admit the fresh evidence.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, brought a proposed class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues, and 60 individual teams, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability for widespread hazing, bullying, and abuse.

The out-of-province defendants brought a motion challenging the court's jurisdiction, which was dismissed as the court found they carried on business in Ontario.

The defendants also brought a Ragoonanan motion, which was granted because the representative plaintiffs only had personal causes of action against five of the 60 teams.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims failed the cause of action, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria, primarily because there was no basis for collective liability among the independent teams.

However, the court utilized sections 7, 12, and 25 of the Class Proceedings Act to permit the action to continue as individual joinder actions, ordering the plaintiffs to prepare an Individual Issues Protocol.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated August 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The plaintiffs in a class action regarding a charitable donation tax shelter brought a motion to compel the defendants' former legal counsel to produce their client files and answer questions refused during discovery.

The plaintiffs argued that solicitor-client privilege was vitiated by the fraud exception, or alternatively, waived through disclosure of a tax opinion and sharing of information with third-party consultants.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the fraud exception applies only to criminal conduct, not civil fraud.

The court further held that disclosure of the stand-alone tax opinion did not waive privilege over the entire file, and that communications shared with third-party consultants were protected by common interest privilege and the functional extension of solicitor-client privilege.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pierce J. dated May 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The plaintiffs brought motions to compel the examination of a defendant on behalf of a corporate defendant and for further and better affidavits of documents from several defendants.

The parties agreed to dismiss the examination motion and portions of the production motion without prejudice.

The court ordered one defendant to produce certain financial documents relevant to personal enrichment and an itemized Schedule B list, but dismissed the remaining requests for further documents and better email descriptors, finding insufficient evidence of missing documents and that the current descriptors were proportionate.