Golnaz Nayerahmadi

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 appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a class action, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding leave to pursue claims against Barrick Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations under the Ontario Securities Act.

The appeal concerned the denial of leave for certain misrepresentation allegations related to Barrick's capital expenditure budget and production schedule, and the identification of public correction dates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that there was no reasonable possibility of success for the additional misrepresentation claims and that the earlier public disclosure fully corrected the alleged misrepresentations, thereby limiting the class period.

The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government for its response to COVID-19 in long-term care homes, asserting claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of Charter s. 7.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care (MLTC) but struck the other claims.

This appeal and cross-appeal challenged that decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appellants' appeal (seeking to certify the struck claims) and the respondent's cross-appeal (seeking to decertify the negligence claim against the MLTC), thereby upholding the motion judge's original certification decision.

The plaintiffs successfully defended a motion by the defendant to amend the certified class definition.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $88,296.33.

The defendant argued the amount was too high and suggested $45,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs request slightly excessive due to unwarranted allegations of abuse of process, which unnecessarily protracted the matter.

The court reduced the requested amount by approximately 20% and awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, payable within 30 days.

This appeal concerned a motion judge's order regarding a class action.

The core issues were whether a discontinued cause of action and defendants could be added to an existing class action (the Martin action) and whether that action would then be governed by the old Class Proceedings Act, 1992, or the amended Act.

The motion judge had ordered the "recast" Martin action to proceed under the amended Act and denied leave to add a party (MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) based on limitations.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in ordering the Martin action to be governed by the amended Act, as Section 39 of the amended Act clearly dictates that actions commenced before October 1, 2020, remain under the old Act.

The court also found an error in dismissing the motion to add MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. based on the Limitations Act, stating that limitation periods are typically individual issues in class actions.

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part, clarifying that the Martin action continues under the old Act, and a re-filed Rowland action (including MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) would proceed under the amended Act.

Following a successful motion to certify a class action regarding psychiatric treatment at the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, the plaintiffs sought costs of $713,798.85 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Crown defendants opposed the quantum, arguing the fees were unreasonable and should be reduced by at least 50% or made payable in the cause.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, noting they failed to provide their own bill of costs for comparison.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $675,000 all-inclusive, payable forthwith.

The Defendant, Bell Mobility Inc., brought a motion to amend the certified class definition in a class action, seeking either to exclude business customers or to compel the addition of a new sub-class with a separate representative plaintiff.

The Defendant argued that business customers might be statute-barred or had distinct interests requiring separate representation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation issue was not ripe for determination on a class-wide basis as it required individualized discoverability analysis.

The court also declined to create a new sub-class, emphasizing judicial economy and the principle against "litigation in installments" given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario regarding the psychiatric treatment of patients detained in the PST Unit of the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital between 1976 and 1992.

The plaintiffs alleged that the 'PST Program' was an experimental, abusive therapeutic community that improperly delegated treatment and punishment decisions to 'patient-teachers', resulting in physical and psychological harm.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and breaches of sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

However, the court narrowed the common issues, certifying questions related to systemic negligence, fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and limitation periods, while directing that Charter breaches, causation, and damages must be determined at individual issues trials.

The court concluded that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to advance the claims of the highly marginalized class members.

The appellant, Payman Khanlari, appealed a summary judgment order that found him liable for unjust enrichment.

He argued that he was treated unfairly as a self-represented litigant and that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment due to credibility issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding unfair treatment, noting the appellant's familiarity with legal proceedings.

However, the court found that the motion judge erred in quantifying the unjust enrichment by not accounting for payments admittedly made by the appellant to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed to vary the judgment amount.

In a class action seeking certification against the Crown and two psychiatrists (Defendant Doctors) regarding treatment in a psychiatric hospital program, the plaintiffs moved for a partial discontinuance of the action against the Defendant Doctors.

The court granted the discontinuance, finding it to be in the best interests of the putative Class Members.

The decision was based on the lack of additional recovery from the doctors, the streamlining of the claim, the doctors' later involvement in the program, and their agreement to provide de bene esse examinations to preserve evidence.

The court confirmed that the discontinuance was not for an improper purpose and did not prejudice the class members or the co-defendant Crown, as the doctors' evidence remained available.

The plaintiffs' counsel, Rochon Genova LLP, sought an order to retain costs awarded by various courts, including post-judgment interest, as part of their contingency fee agreement.

The total amount of costs sought was over $5.6 million, bringing their total compensation to over $7.4 million.

The defendants took no position as the costs had already been paid.

The court approved the request, finding the contingency fee agreements fair and reasonable given the exceptional circumstances, high risk, complexity, and two-decade duration of the litigation, which involved novel claims and a protracted procedural history.

The court confirmed the request complied with section 28.1(8) of the Solicitors Act, noting no excessive fees or 'double-dipping.'

This is an appeal management endorsement concerning an appeal and cross-appeal from a class action certification decision.

The underlying action alleges gross negligence by the Government of Ontario regarding COVID-19 deaths and illnesses in long-term care homes.

The Court of Appeal addressed requests for extended factum lengths and oral hearing time.

The judge granted leave for longer factums (50 pages for the main appeal, 30 for the cross-appeal) and scheduled a two-day oral hearing.

The endorsement also provided guidance on the effective use and timely delivery of Oral Hearing Compendiums.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 20, 2022, regarding a certification motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and noted that the parties could apply to the Court of Appeal to have this appeal heard together with the pending appeal of the dismissal of the balance of the certification motion.

No costs were awarded as costs outlines were not filed.

This decision addresses a costs motion following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $300,000 USD (converted to $406,960 CAD) against one defendant for a loan repayment, while the action against the co-defendant (guarantor) was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs on a mixed partial and substantial indemnity basis, totaling $151,623.41, arguing that a Rule 49 settlement offer was served and the defendant's resistance was "tough." The court reviewed the unopposed costs submissions and detailed Bill of Costs, finding the claimed costs reasonable and necessarily expended, particularly given the self-represented defendant's sophisticated and challenging conduct.

The court granted the costs as requested.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care (LTC) homes.

The plaintiffs alleged gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The court certified the class action solely on the negligence/gross negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care, finding it arguable that the Long-Term Care Homes Act imposes a private law duty of care on the Minister to protect LTC residents.

The fiduciary duty and Charter claims were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The class was limited to LTC residents and their families, excluding visitors.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akbarali J. dated July 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $37,500.

This is a costs endorsement following complex grouped appeals and a cross-appeal concerning claims by 28 former residents of the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre against His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and two physicians.

The Court of Appeal had largely upheld the trial judge's findings on liability for breach of fiduciary duty and battery, with minor reductions in damages.

The appellants sought a significant reduction in the respondents' costs for the appeal and a reduction in the trial costs.

The court awarded the respondents the full amount of their claimed appeal costs, finding that despite mixed success, the trial judgment remained largely intact and the costs claimed were reasonable given the complexity.

The court also declined to vary the trial costs, deeming the overturned $1,000 judgment a minor part of the overall proceedings.

The respondents were involuntarily admitted to a maximum-security psychiatric facility between 1966 and 1983, where they were subjected to experimental and abusive treatment programs, including mind-altering drugs and severe solitary confinement.

The trial judge found the province and the treating physicians liable for breach of fiduciary duty, battery, and assault, awarding substantial general and punitive damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of breach of fiduciary duty and battery for certain respondents, but reversed the findings of assault and battery for others due to a lack of direct physical interference or imminent threat.

The Court rejected defences based on Crown immunity and historic limitation periods, and largely upheld the damages awards, including those exceeding the Andrews cap, while making specific adjustments for individual respondents.

In a supplementary decision on a motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action, the court considered whether certain disclosures constituted public corrections of alleged misrepresentations made by the defendants in February and March 2012 regarding a mining project's capital expenditure budget and schedule.

The court found a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs could prove the July 2012 disclosure was a partial public correction, but rejected subsequent disclosures in November 2012 and April 2013 as public corrections.

Leave was granted to proceed with the misrepresentation claims against the corporate defendant and two individual certifying officers.

The plaintiffs sought leave under the Securities Act to commence a class action against Barrick Gold Corporation and certain officers/directors for alleged misrepresentations in public disclosures concerning the Pascua-Lama mining project.

The court dismissed most of the alleged misrepresentations due to a lack of precision in pleading and insufficient credible evidence, particularly regarding accounting and contingent liability claims, and October 2011, May 2012, November 2012, and March 2013 capex/scheduling claims.

However, the court found a reasonable possibility of success for certain capex budget and scheduling misrepresentations made in February and March 2012, but required further submissions on the issue of public correction for these.

Claims against two individual defendants were dismissed due to their tenure or lack of evidence.