Glenn Zakaib

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

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 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 plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against FCA Canada Inc. (Chrysler Canada) regarding defective Takata airbags installed in its vehicles.

The plaintiff alleged negligence for pure economic losses associated with the dangerous product.

The court analyzed the certification criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court found that the cause of action, identifiable class, common issues, and representative plaintiff criteria were met or could be met.

However, the court held that the preferable procedure criterion was not satisfied.

The court reasoned that Chrysler Canada's existing recall program was preferable to a class action, especially given the delay in prosecuting the action and the limited scope of recovery for pure economic loss under current tort law.

The certification motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $4.95 million settlement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium in a class action alleging the defendants misrepresented vehicle fuel economy ratings.

The court initially rejected the settlement approval based on a take-up analysis, but approved it after class counsel provided a revised analysis showing the settlement amount was fair relative to the maximum recoverable at trial.

The court also approved a modified honorarium of $3,000 for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 33 percent contingency fee.

The representative plaintiffs in two class actions against the Toronto Police Services Board for wrongful arrest and detention during the 2010 G20 Summit sought court approval for a proposed settlement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included up to $16.5 million in financial compensation, a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, commitments to reform policing of public demonstrations, and expungement of arrest records.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant non-monetary components and the risks of proceeding to trial.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, which amounted to approximately 28 percent of the recovery, as fair and reasonable.

The plaintiff and remaining defendants in a price-fixing class action sought to certify the action on consent, approve class counsel fees, and dismiss the action.

The class members had previously been compensated through a settlement with other defendants.

The court found no prejudice to the class, certified the action, approved class counsel fees of $239,895.26 from trust funds, and dismissed the action without costs.

This decision concerns a consent certification motion in a class action arising from a six-alarm electrical fire at 650 Parliament Street, Toronto, which displaced hundreds of tenants.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding against the core defendants, Parwell Investments Inc. and 650 Parliament (LHB) Investments Limited, on the common issue of negligence.

The certification was granted based on the parties' agreement, satisfying the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including an identifiable class, common issues, preferability of a class proceeding, and suitable representative plaintiffs.

The order defined the class, appointed representative plaintiffs, declared negligence as the cause of action, and outlined specific common issues related to the defendants' duty and breach of care concerning the building's design, construction, operation, maintenance, and electrical systems.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action in Ontario against McDonald's and Simon Marketing Inc. alleging wrongdoing in relation to promotional contests.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that the claims had been finally disposed of in an Illinois class action settlement.

The motion judge refused to stay or dismiss the action, finding that the notice given to the Canadian members of the plaintiff class in the Illinois action was so inadequate as to violate the rules of natural justice.

The defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that before enforcing a foreign class action judgment against Ontario residents, the court must ensure the foreign court had a proper basis for jurisdiction and that the interests of Ontario residents were adequately protected.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's finding that the notice given to the non-resident class members was inadequate, and therefore the Ontario courts should not recognize and enforce the Illinois judgment against the plaintiff and the non-attorning Canadian class members.

The appellant, an engineering student, sued the respondent university for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the transferability of its two-year program to other Ontario universities.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action and denied class certification, finding that the appellant's failure to complete one elective course meant he had not met a 'condition precedent' to rely on the representations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the claim was framed in tort, not contract, and therefore no condition precedent applied.

The summary judgment was set aside, and the certification motion was remitted to the Superior Court.