Harvin Pitch

The plaintiffs requested an urgent case conference to schedule a mediation and fix a trial date before the action was administratively dismissed.

One of the plaintiffs objected, citing an upcoming motion regarding the removal of his counsel in a separate action.

The court found it unfair to delay the other plaintiffs and ordered that mediation be held by June 30, 2022, and that the action appear on the trial scheduling court list on April 11, 2022.

The moving party wife sought interim costs and disbursements of $500,000 to fund her family law and oppression remedy claims against the responding party husband, who controlled the family's closely-held corporations.

She also sought temporary spousal support and an order compelling the husband to answer undertakings and refusals from his questioning.

The court awarded $250,000 in interim costs under the OBCA as an advance against her shareholdings, finding her oppression claim had sufficient merit and she lacked liquid resources.

The court also ordered the husband to pay $3,000 per month in temporary spousal support to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, and compelled him to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim against the defendant David Rosenkrantz, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against Rosenkrantz in his capacity as an officer and director of the Patica Companies, relating to a tax deferral arrangement.

The court found the pleadings lacked the necessary material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability, negligent misrepresentation, or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim and the related crossclaim against Rosenkrantz, but granted leave to amend.

In a certified class proceeding concerning allegedly defective hip implants, the court addressed issues relating to notice to class members and the identification of potential class members.

The court ordered the defendants to make reasonable efforts to locate names and addresses of implant class members contained in product adverse event reports and other related sources where the information was available and the province of residence was not British Columbia or Quebec.

However, the court declined to require an extensive manual internal review of all potential incident reports, finding such a requirement would be disproportionately burdensome and would not materially improve the notice program.

The court also determined the proper title for the certification notice and class counsel’s website, concluding that inclusion of the manufacturer’s name alongside the product identifier was reasonably necessary to inform the intended class.

The plaintiffs moved, on consent, for certification of a proposed medical device class action for settlement purposes, approval of a national settlement, and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action concerned allegations that surgical mesh hernia repair products were defectively designed and inadequately warned against, causing injuries due to device ring breakage or buckling.

The court found that the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Act were satisfied, noting an identifiable class and common issues regarding negligent design and failure to warn.

The court further held that the proposed $1.375 million settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given significant litigation risks and the small number of qualifying claimants.

A 30% contingency fee and disbursements were also approved as reasonable in light of the work performed and the risks undertaken by class counsel.

Following certification of a proposed class action concerning recalled metal-on-metal hip implants, the court determined the appropriate costs award for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs, as the successful parties on certification, sought over $700,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court found the claim grossly excessive due to over-lawyering, excessive hours, and hourly rates exceeding the applicable guideline ranges.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, guidance from appellate jurisprudence, and historical averages for certification motion costs awards, the court significantly reduced the claim.

The court emphasized transparency and predictability in costs awards and fixed costs at $175,000 all-inclusive payable forthwith.

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.