Grace Tsang

The plaintiff brought a class action against Health Canada for negligent regulation of a jaw implant device, limiting her claim to damages attributable to Health Canada's proportionate degree of fault.

The defendant brought a third-party claim against the dental surgeon and hospital for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the third-party claim, confirming that because the plaintiff limited her claim to the defendant's several liability, the defendant had no right to contribution.

The Court also clarified that fault can be apportioned against non-parties under the Negligence Act.

The original representative plaintiff in a class action regarding temporomandibular joint implants sought to withdraw and substitute two new representative plaintiffs.

The defendant appealed the motion judge's order allowing the substitution, arguing it prejudiced them by expanding the class and extending the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 28(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, the limitation period is suspended for all class members upon the commencement of the action, not upon certification.

Furthermore, the substituted plaintiffs were already members of the putative class, so the class was not improperly expanded.

The tenants appealed a trial judgment finding their commercial lease invalid and terminating their month-to-month tenancy.

They argued the trial judge erred by excluding the female tenant from the courtroom while her husband testified.

The Court of Appeal held that while excluding a party violates rule 52.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it did not cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in this case.

The landlord's estate cross-appealed the dismissal of its claim for arrears of rent and taxes.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, finding that while the landlord's course of conduct waived the rent arrears, the tenants' uncorroborated evidence regarding property and business taxes could not defeat the estate's claim under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

Three separate appeals were brought challenging a motions judge's order regarding claims related to defective breast implants.

OHIP appealed the striking of its subrogated claim, which the court dismissed, finding the claim was fully satisfied by the Dow Settlement Agreement.

The Attorney General and Dow appealed the dismissal of their motions to strike the plaintiffs' action for regulatory negligence, arguing the settlement agreements barred the claims and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, holding that the plaintiffs' several liability claims against the government regulator were different in nature and kind from the settled claims and were not barred by the prior agreements.