Gary R. Will

In a class action against a long-term care home regarding a COVID-19 outbreak, the parties agreed on the terms of a certification order except for the temporal scope of discovery regarding infection prevention and control (IPAC).

The defendants sought to limit questions to the three weeks prior to the first outbreak, while the plaintiff sought an undefined period leading up to the outbreak.

The court adopted the plaintiff's flexible approach, holding that the relevance of IPAC matters preceding the outbreak must be assessed on a question-by-question basis during discoveries.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent to certify a class action against the defendants regarding their response to COVID-19 outbreaks at a retirement residence.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were grossly negligent in their infection prevention and control measures, resulting in preventable infections and deaths.

The court found that the requirements of section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were satisfied and certified the action on the terms proposed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent for an order certifying a class action against the defendants regarding COVID-19 outbreaks at a retirement home.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were grossly negligent in their response to the pandemic, resulting in infections and deaths.

The court found the requirements of section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met and certified the action on the terms proposed by the plaintiffs.

Residents of a Toronto apartment building sought certification of a class action following a fire allegedly caused by negligent maintenance of electrical systems and smart meters.

The proposed class sued the building owner, property managers, superintendent, and the electricity distributor.

The electricity distributor opposed certification, arguing the claim failed to disclose a viable negligence cause of action and that the certification criteria were not met.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed a viable negligence claim against the distributor and that the statutory and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution did not negate the claim at the certification stage.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding with a modified class definition excluding residents operating marijuana grow‑ops in the building.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a product liability class action regarding allegedly defective door latches in certain Ford vehicles.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the claims did not raise common issues, as the differences in door latch mechanisms across vehicle models meant that findings for one vehicle could not be extrapolated to others.

The court also agreed that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, noting the regulatory role of Transport Canada, and that the appellant was not an appropriate representative plaintiff due to his lack of involvement and the inadequate litigation plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, Ontario residents, appealed a decision staying their action against a New Orleans restaurant owner for a slip and fall injury sustained while vacationing in Louisiana.

The motion judge found that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, applying the real and substantial connection test and finding that requiring a foreign restaurant owner to defend in the customer's home jurisdiction would impose an unreasonable burden.

The appellant submitted a $950,000 insurance claim following a theft at her residence, which included $50,000 for stolen artwork.

To substantiate the artwork's value, she provided the insurer with false invoices and maintained their validity under oath until compelled to disclose purchaser names.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing her claim due to fraud and misrepresentation.

On appeal, the appellant argued the misrepresentations were not material as they only sought to justify legitimate value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant breached her duty of utmost good faith, rendering any evidence of her claimed loss untrustworthy.

The defendants appealed an order consolidating two proposed class actions and substituting a new representative plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive rights between the parties.

As an interlocutory order, the appeal properly lies to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant's home was destroyed by fire.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, alleging arson, despite its own experts and investigators concluding the fire was accidental.

The insurer maintained this bad faith defence through a lengthy trial to force a lower settlement.

The jury awarded compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damages to $100,000.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the $1 million jury award, holding that the insurer's breach of the duty of good faith was an independent actionable wrong and the jury's award, while high, was a rational response to the insurer's exceptionally reprehensible conduct.