Heather Thompson

The plaintiffs in a certified class action brought a motion to amend their statement of claim and certification order to add a claim for punitive damages based on evidence discovered during the discovery process.

The claim alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known of possible PFAS contamination of class members' drinking water by March 2013 but failed to disclose the contamination until December 2015.

The court found the proposed amendment was not plain and obvious to fail, as the failure to warn neighbouring residents of possible PFAS contamination of their drinking water could be found to offend the court's sense of decency.

The motion to amend was granted, Carleton University was removed as a defendant on consent, and the defendant's cross-motion was denied.

Following a successful motion for class action certification regarding PFAS groundwater contamination, the plaintiffs sought costs against the unsuccessful defendant, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).

A successful co-defendant, Carleton University, sought costs against the plaintiffs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57, the court ordered NRC to pay the plaintiffs $207,500 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Carleton University $20,000 plus HST in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and Carleton University, alleging that PFAS contaminants from NRC's National Fire Laboratory migrated into the groundwater of adjacent properties.

The court certified the class action against NRC for claims in strict liability, nuisance, negligence, and statutory breaches, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court dismissed the claim for punitive damages against NRC and refused to certify the common issues against Carleton University due to a lack of evidence connecting its activities to the contamination.

The applicant, a federal inmate, filed an application for habeas corpus under the Criminal Proceedings Rules to challenge his involuntary transfer to a maximum-security institution.

The respondent requested that the application be refiled under the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the matter was civil in nature.

The court directed the Registrar to accept the application as a criminal proceeding for administrative purposes, noting that requiring inmates to navigate civil rules and filing fees would impede access to justice.

Following a successful summary judgment motion in a class action regarding administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries, the representative plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $1,235,590.33.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive and duplicative of work done in a concurrent class action involving mentally ill inmates.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the work was largely duplicative, noting the cases were distinct and the defendant had tenaciously defended both.

The court made a modest reduction of $113,000 for some overlapping settlement discussions and awarded the plaintiff $1,122,590.33 in costs.