Glustein

The plaintiff, a residential tenant, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against a neighbouring bar and its landlords, alleging nuisance from amplified sound and noise vibrations.

The plaintiff sought orders restricting the bar's operations, requiring the installation of a noise limiter, and compelling police response to complaints.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of nuisance under the alternative Hamilton test, noting the lack of expert evidence regarding sound levels in the plaintiff's apartment.

The plaintiff brought motions for approval of a settlement agreement, a discretionary fund, class counsel fees, and a notice program in a class action concerning allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implants.

The court approved the claims-made settlement and the $750,000 discretionary fund, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks.

The court also approved a 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $1.25 million contribution from the defendants towards fees and disbursements.

However, the court dismissed the representative plaintiff's request for a $7,500 honorarium, finding no exceptional circumstances of personal hardship.

The requestors brought a motion to summon the former Chief Adjudicator of the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat to provide evidence at an upcoming hearing of a Request for Directions (RFD) brought by Canada.

Canada's RFD sought to strike the requestors' own RFD regarding compliance with ancillary orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the former Chief Adjudicator's evidence regarding his conduct or failure to bring an RFD was not relevant to the narrow interpretation and procedural issues raised in Canada's RFD.

The requestors brought a motion seeking answers to 142 questions refused by Canada during an out-of-court cross-examination of a government affiant.

The cross-examination arose in the context of Canada's request for directions to strike the requestors' motion regarding compliance with the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The court largely upheld Canada's refusals on the bases of relevance, proportionality, privilege, and speculation, but ordered Canada to answer six specific questions of fact.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Canada on behalf of immigration detainees who were incarcerated in provincial prisons.

The plaintiffs alleged that the practice of detaining immigration detainees in provincial prisons, where they are subjected to penal conditions such as co-mingling with criminal inmates, strip searches, and the use of restraints, violates sections 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Charter and constitutes systemic negligence.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections, finding that the pleadings disclosed reasonable causes of action, the class was identifiable, the common issues could be determined in common, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiffs were adequate.

The motion for certification was granted.

The defendants in a class action brought a motion seeking the production of class counsel's redacted dockets to respond to the plaintiffs' costs submissions following certification.

The plaintiffs opposed the production.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the production of dockets to support costs submissions on a motion is only ordered in exceptional cases to protect solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the substantial amount of costs claimed, the disparity between the parties' costs, and alleged incongruities in the costs outline did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting production.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ticketmaster regarding its secondary ticket market practices.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ticketmaster knowingly facilitated or turned a blind eye to professional resellers using bots and multiple accounts to bypass primary market ticket limits, contrary to its Terms of Use and Purchase Policy.

The court certified the class action for claims of breach of contract, breach of ticketing legislation, unlawful means conspiracy, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court found that the claims under the Competition Act and consumer protection legislation did not disclose a cause of action because the plaintiffs failed to plead a sufficient causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and their damages.

The court also dismissed Ticketmaster's motion to strike the plaintiffs' expert reports, finding them admissible and relevant to establishing a methodology for calculating aggregate damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of inmates in federal penitentiaries who were subjected to suspicionless strip searches.

The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations authorizing these searches in certain situations were ultra vires the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, breached sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and constituted torts including trespass to the person and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections and granted the motion for certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, the class definition was appropriate, the proposed common issues were valid, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The proposed representative plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company for alleged failure to pay vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation to Property & Casualty Insurance Advisors.

The court granted certification against RBC IA, finding some basis in fact for the claims and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court found the proposed representative plaintiff's claim against Aviva General was presumptively statute-barred and conditionally certified the action against Aviva General, allowing 100 days to find a new representative plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the antidepressant Celexa, alleging it is a teratogen that causes congenital malformations.

The plaintiffs proposed common issues regarding general causation (whether Celexa is or may be teratogenic) and duty to warn.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues failed to satisfy the commonality requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, as they would not advance the litigation without individual trials for each specific congenital malformation.

The court also found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the overwhelming number of complex individual issues.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to defer filing its statement of defence until after the certification motion in a proposed class proceeding regarding immigration detention.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the presumption that a defendant must file a statement of defence before certification unless special circumstances justify a deferral.

The court found that the legal issues were well-defined and the defendant's concerns about the complexity and resources required to prepare the defence conflated pleading preparation with discovery or trial preparation.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims arising from the birth of a child with spina bifida.

The defendants argued the mother's wrongful birth claim was statute-barred and the child's wrongful life claim disclosed no cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the wrongful birth claim, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the limitation period was tolled due to the mother's reliance on the doctor's alleged misrepresentation that the ultrasound was clear.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the wrongful life claim, confirming settled law that a physician does not owe a duty of care to a future child for a lack of informed consent to the mother.

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.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving party defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued that the court should apply the appropriateness exception under s. 137.1(7) to award partial indemnity costs instead of the presumptive full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no basis to depart from the full indemnity presumption, and awarded the defendants their costs on a full indemnity basis (and substantial indemnity for one defendant on a pro bono retainer), totaling over $383,000.

The plaintiffs, a newspaper publisher and his company, brought an action for defamation, misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and wrongful interference with economic relations against several city councillors, school board trustees, and a media company.

The action arose from statements made by the defendants criticizing articles published by the plaintiffs as homophobic and transphobic, and advocating for the cessation of city advertising in the plaintiffs' newspaper.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the other claims had merit, and failed to show that the defendants had no valid defences, including fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication.

Furthermore, the court found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in two related actions sought an interim Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a fraudulent investment scheme involving the purchase and resale of used vehicles.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, noting evidence of non-existent purchasers, missing funds, and the transfer of assets by the personal defendant.

The court granted the Mareva injunction in the standard form, rejecting the defendants' request for an adjournment and their proposed terms allowing discretionary withdrawals for living expenses and business operations.

The plaintiff sought leave to bring a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and to certify a class action for both statutory and common law negligent misrepresentation claims.

The claims arose from the defendant mining company's alleged failure to immediately disclose a pit wall instability and subsequent rock slide at its Chilean copper mine.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success that the events constituted a 'change' to the company's business, operations, or capital, as they were inherent mining risks managed in the ordinary course.

The court also dismissed the certification motion for the common law claim, holding that individual issues of reliance made a class proceeding unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion to approve a class action settlement regarding unpaid overtime and holiday pay for television production workers misclassified as independent contractors.

The settlement provided for a $1 million payment if a proposed collective agreement was ratified, or $2.5 million if it was not.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it avoided significant litigation risks regarding certification and individual damages proof.

The court also approved a 30% contingency fee for class counsel and a $7,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff due to her exceptional involvement in collective bargaining.

The plaintiff brought motions for approval of a class action settlement, plan of distribution, and class counsel fees in a securities class action alleging goodwill misrepresentation.

The court approved the settlement of US$3.65 million, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of the litigation, including the primary market claims being potentially statute-barred and the defendants' dwindling insurance proceeds.

The court also approved the plan of distribution, the appointment of the settlement administrator and referee, and class counsel's 33% contingency fee of $1,353,246.25.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of COLD-FX products, alleging that representations that the products were 'proven by science' or 'clinically proven' to reduce cold and flu symptoms were false and misleading.

The court found that the plaintiff met all the requirements for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court held that the claims under the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, and for unjust enrichment disclosed valid causes of action, as reliance is not required for these claims.

The court certified the class and the proposed common issues against Bausch Health Canada Inc. and Valeant Canada LP, finding that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.