Harvey T. Strosberg

The court approved a $2.1 billion class action settlement for Canadian owners and lessees of VW 2.0-litre diesel vehicles affected by the "defeat device" fraud.

The settlement provides cash payments and options for vehicle buyback or emissions modification, with the buyback option generally offering a larger recovery.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, exceeding what members would likely recover under provincial consumer protection legislation or tort law.

The representative plaintiffs moved for approval of a $2.375 million settlement in a class action concerning the under-dosing of chemotherapy drugs at several hospitals.

The defendants, who supplied and administered the drugs, denied liability, arguing there was no evidence of clinical impact on patient outcomes and that the plaintiffs' psychological harm did not meet the legal threshold for a recognizable psychiatric illness.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks, the lack of evidence showing clinical harm, and the recommendations of experienced class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's requested fees of $400,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes regarding Volkswagen's installation of a 'defeat device' in certain diesel vehicles.

The court found that the requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, including an identifiable class and common issues.

The court also determined it had jurisdiction to certify a national class, noting the efficiency and comity of doing so.

The motion for certification, along with the approval of an unprecedentedly comprehensive notice plan, was granted.

The Steering Committee, an unincorporated group of physicians and scientists, sought to intervene in a joint hearing of motions concerning the allocation of actuarially unallocated funds from the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement.

The Committee proposed allocating funds to its "National HCV Initiative," which aimed to benefit all Canadians with HCV, not just class members.

The court dismissed the intervention request, finding that the Steering Committee was a stranger to both the Settlement Agreement and the underlying litigation, lacking privity of contract or any substantive right to participate in the administration of the settlement.

The plaintiffs brought certification motions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 relating to falling balcony glass panels from three condominium developments in Toronto.

Owners and residents alleged negligence, nuisance, and breach of contract against developers, builders, and related entities after balconies were sealed and glass panels replaced following safety concerns.

The defendants consented to certification subject to three caveats regarding class definition wording, certification of an aggregate damages issue, and the viability of a collateral contract claim against a developer.

The court certified the actions as class proceedings, rejecting the proposed change to the class definition and permitting the collateral contract claim to proceed as a common issue.

However, the court declined to certify a proposed aggregate damages issue due to appellate authority interpreting s. 24(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act as prohibiting random sampling of class members to determine damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine whether a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could sit outside Ontario to hear a motion concerning a pan-Canadian class action settlement.

The Attorney General of Ontario objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside its territorial boundaries.

The court held that where it has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it possesses the inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, which includes the discretion to sit outside the province.

The court found that holding a joint hearing with supervisory judges from British Columbia and Quebec in Alberta was in the interests of justice to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent orders.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a $9 million class action settlement and Class Counsel's fee agreement regarding a C. difficile outbreak at the defendant hospital.

The outbreak affected approximately 223 patients, 91 of whom died.

The court reviewed the settlement terms, which allocated funds based on the duration and severity of symptoms, and considered factors such as litigation risk, the recommendation of experienced counsel, and the single remaining objection.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlement and the proposed legal fees of 21.5%.

In a class proceeding arising from a major propane facility explosion, the plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim and certify claims against additional defendants associated with the ownership and leasing of the facility property.

The court considered whether the proposed amended pleading satisfied the s. 5(1)(a) requirement of the Class Proceedings Act by disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

Claims in strict liability and nuisance against the property-owning defendants were struck because the pleadings failed to meet the legal prerequisites and improperly characterized the alleged nuisance.

Negligence claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act were also dismissed because the alleged damages occurred off the premises and the statute only applies to persons entering the premises.

However, the court held that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded a viable common law negligence claim based on the defendants’ alleged rights of control and failure to intervene in unsafe operations.

Certification against the remaining defendants proceeded solely on the basis of the common law negligence cause of action.

In a certified class proceeding arising from explosions at a propane facility, class counsel moved for an order restraining an insurer and its counsel from communicating directly with class members during the court‑approved opt‑out period.

The insurer’s counsel had sent letters stating the insurer would opt insured class members out of the class action and pursue their claims through a subrogated action.

The court held the communications were misleading, interfered with the solicitor‑client relationship between class counsel and class members, and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court reaffirmed that insureds retain control of litigation until fully indemnified for both insured and uninsured losses.

An order was made prohibiting the insurer and its counsel from communicating with affected class members without court approval or consent of class counsel during the opt‑out period.

The proposed representative plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding for settlement purposes against certain defendants in alleged price‑fixing within the static random access memory (SRAM) industry.

The action alleged breaches of Part VI of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with economic interests.

A national settlement had been reached with certain defendants, providing payment to class members and cooperation in the ongoing litigation against remaining defendants.

The court considered the certification criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and found they were satisfied for settlement purposes.

The court approved certification against the settling defendants and approved the proposed notice and notice plan, setting a date for settlement approval proceedings.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of Barbados participating policyholders, brought an action against Manulife following the transfer of their policies to Life of Barbados (LOB) in 1996 and Manulife's subsequent demutualization in 1999.

The plaintiffs claimed that Manulife owed them a duty of care and a fiduciary duty to protect their rights to participate in the demutualization.

The court found that while it was reasonably foreseeable that Manulife would demutualize, no duty of care or fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs because their rights as policyholders were lawfully extinguished by the transfer agreement, which was approved by regulators in Barbados and Canada.

The action was dismissed.

In a proposed class action arising from a train derailment, the defendants communicated directly with several putative class members during the pre‑certification stage and offered individual settlements in exchange for releases.

The plaintiffs sought disclosure of the releases, rescission of the settlements, and an order preventing further communications between the defendants and putative class members.

The court held that there was no evidence of misconduct or breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct because the communications were sent by the defendants rather than their counsel and there was no proof the defendants knew the recipients were represented.

However, to preserve the integrity of the proposed class proceeding, the court ordered disclosure of the releases and required the defendants to provide class counsel with copies of any future correspondence seven days before distribution while prohibiting communication with putative class members known to be represented.

Rescission of the settlements was refused due to the absence of evidence supporting grounds such as misrepresentation, duress, or unconscionability.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a second instalment of security for costs totaling approximately $894,960 in complex civil litigation involving a $100 million claim.

The court considered the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances, including the corporate plaintiff’s lack of assets and the impecuniosity of two individual plaintiffs.

Balancing the security for costs rule, an earlier order requiring $125,000 security, and access to justice concerns, the court held that requiring the large additional amount requested would be unjust.

However, recognizing the importance of a damages report for mediation and pre‑trial, the court ordered a limited additional payment of $25,000 as security for costs.

The defendants were granted liberty to seek further security should the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances change.