Gary 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 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.

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 plaintiff sought certification of a class action under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, alleging the defendant was grossly negligent in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic at Oakwood Park, a long-term care home.

The classes comprised residents and visitors who contracted COVID-19 and their family members during the period January 25, 2020 to May 5, 2023.

The defendant consented to certification.

The court found all five certification requirements satisfied, including cause of action, identifiable class, common issues supported by expert methodology on causation and damages, preferability of a class proceeding, and adequate representative plaintiffs with a workable litigation plan.

The appellant appealed a costs award of $300,000 made by the trial judge following a motor vehicle accident case.

The respondent was struck by a vehicle driven by the appellant while crossing a pedestrian crossing.

After a three-week jury trial, the jury awarded the respondent $24,166 in general damages and $26,000 in special damages for past income loss, with a net recovery of $16,160.50 after accounting for contributory negligence and statutory deductibles.

The trial judge awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the respondent was more successful at trial.

The appellant argued the costs award was wholly disproportionate to the modest recovery and that the trial judge erred in finding the respondent was more successful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the costs award.

The plaintiff, Erwin Banfi, brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees against multiple municipal and provincial defendants concerning alleged increased flood risk and reduced property values due to overdevelopment in Oakville.

The action, initially premised on property diminution, shifted focus due to difficulties in proving causation and quantifying individual damages.

The proposed settlement involved a $500,000 payment by defendants to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation for a flood education and protection program for class members, and class counsel fees of $495,000.

The court approved the cy-près settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the litigation's challenges and the material benefit provided to class members.

Class counsel fees and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

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 applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the insurer.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing under section 55 of the Schedule due to her failure to attend multiple section 44 insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had recently attended two rescheduled examinations and indicated her intention to attend the remaining two.

Denying the applicant the ability to adjudicate her claim would be unduly prejudicial and contrary to procedural fairness.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant may proceed with her application.

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision caused by the defendants.

The defendants did not contest liability.

The trial focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychiatric injuries, rendering him unable to return to his employment as a Lead Hand electrician for the City of Guelph.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's injuries were exaggerated and that he could return to work with accommodation.

The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his treating medical experts, finding that he suffered permanent and serious impairments, including cognitive deficits, vision and hearing issues, and chronic pain.

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in general damages, $38,177.40 in special damages, $75,308 for past lost wages, $1,282,074 for future income loss, and $735,092 for future care costs.

The plaintiff's counsel sought an adjournment of a long motion brought by the defendant to dismiss a class action.

The adjournment was requested primarily due to the recent retention of outside counsel who was unavailable, among other reasons.

The court reluctantly granted the adjournment, criticizing plaintiff's counsel's conduct for causing needless delay and wasting judicial resources, but found it necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court emphasized that retaining new counsel on the eve of a hearing will not constitute exceptional circumstances for future adjournments.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded against the plaintiff's counsel.

This motion concerned the certification of a class action arising from a fire at a self-storage facility.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding on behalf of tenants who lost property, claiming damages in contract, tort, and unjust enrichment.

The court certified the action, finding that four of the five certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

Most proposed common issues related to negligence, limitation of liability, assignment of leases, and punitive damages were certified, while issues regarding prejudgment interest and unjust enrichment for retained advance rental payments were not.

No costs were awarded due to the parties' cooperation and the substantial revision of issues.

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action arising from a bicycle accident allegedly caused by the defendants' dog, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $294,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendants' settlement offers lacked a substantive element of compromise and the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible.

Furthermore, the court reduced the defendants' partial indemnity costs by 40% to penalize their counsel's failure to disclose surveillance evidence, veterinary records, and other documents prior to trial, which undermined the policy of early settlement and full disclosure.

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 appellant brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Prepulsid.

The respondents successfully moved to strike paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging fraudulent or negligent filings with Health Canada and claiming reimbursement of the purchase price.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the paragraphs regarding regulatory filings as they were sustainable under a negligence or negligent misstatement claim.

However, the court upheld the striking of the reimbursement claims, finding they could not be sustained under negligence, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment.

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 appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claims for damages after the appellant slipped and fell in her apartment building's parking lot.

They argued the trial judge erred in admitting hospital and ambulance records regarding the mechanism of the fall, allowing them to be used as prior inconsistent statements, and in instructing the jury on the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the records were properly admitted as circumstantial evidence of prior inconsistent statements and the jury instructions on reasonable care were appropriate.

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.