9 total
Motions to intervene in class action appeal regarding the Ragoonanan principle granted in part.
Four organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the certification of a class action against the Province of Ontario and 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.
The appeal engages the continued application of the Ragoonanan principle, which requires a representative plaintiff to have a cause of action against each defendant.
The motion judge granted leave to intervene to the Class Action Clinic and Women of Class, and granted leave on limited issues to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, finding their perspectives would be useful to the court.
Trial adjourned to allow plaintiffs to obtain environmental site assessment reports in the interests of justice.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial of their action concerning well water contamination on their purchased property.
The adjournment was sought to allow the plaintiffs to complete a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
The defendant municipality opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiffs were precluded from taking further steps under Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial.
The court granted leave under Rule 48.04, finding it was in the interests of justice, and granted the adjournment to ensure the action could be determined on its merits with the best available evidence.
Timetable set for five-judge panel appeals regarding class action certification and the Ragoonanan principle.
A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.
The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.
The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.
The court awarded $335,000 in costs to the successful defendants, applying a 40% public interest discount.
This is a costs decision arising from a class action certification motion concerning the now-defunct "birth alerts" policy issued by Children's Aid Societies in Ontario.
The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the province of Ontario and 50 CAS defendants on behalf of mothers claiming compensation for discriminatory treatment.
The court certified the action against Ontario but denied certification against the CAS defendants due to structural defects in the pleading (the Ragoonanan problem).
The plaintiffs settled with Ontario for $300,000 in all-inclusive costs.
The CAS defendants sought $564,318.61 in costs.
The court reduced this amount to $335,000, applying a 40% discount under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act to reflect the public interest nature of the case and access to justice concerns.
The Court of Appeal upheld the denial of class certification for alleged systemic abuse at a psychiatric hospital due to a lack of commonality.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.
The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.
The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.
The court certified a class action against Ontario regarding Birth Alerts but dismissed it against individual Children's Aid Societies.
This decision certifies a class action against the Province of Ontario regarding the issuance of "Birth Alerts" by Ontario children's aid societies (CASs), but declines to certify the action against the CASs themselves.
The court finds that the claims against the CASs suffer from the "Ragoonanan problem"—the lack of a representative plaintiff with a claim against each defendant—and that the CASs acted independently, not collectively.
The action against Ontario, however, is certified on the basis of negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as the Province had oversight authority and failed to act to stop the practice despite being able to do so.
The court sets out the certified class, common issues, and clarifies the preferable procedure for such claims.
A drop-in center was found liable for failing to protect a visitor from assault.
The plaintiff, Adam (Family of) Davidson, sued Cummer Avenue United Church, Sandra Seepaul, and Hub International Insurance for damages after being assaulted by a third party, Joe, at a drop-in center operated by the church.
The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the Occupiers' Liability Act and in negligence, and that they breached the standard of care by failing to implement adequate safety measures and anti-harassment policies.
The court awarded the plaintiff $7,500 in damages, including aggravated damages, and found no contributory negligence on the plaintiff's part.
The court dismissed a public interest organization's motion to intervene in a class action appeal because its proposed submissions were duplicative.
The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.
Six COVID-19 class actions against long-term care corporate groups certified for gross negligence; independent homes dismissed.
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.