Henry Juroviesky

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a proposed class action on behalf of former employees seeking commissions allegedly owing on post‑dated collections following mass layoffs by the defendant debt collection company.

The claim alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from the defendant’s return of certain collections to a client rather than paying commissions to employees.

After discussion with the court, the parties consented to certification with revised pleadings, class definition, and common issues.

The court independently assessed the requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and found the criteria satisfied, including an identifiable class, common issues, and a suitable representative plaintiff.

Certification was granted and the court fixed costs payable to the plaintiff in the amount of $25,000 in any event of the cause, payable after the defendant’s upcoming summary judgment motion.

The defendant travel company brought a motion for summary judgment in a certified class proceeding alleging breach of contract relating to hotel reservation charges.

The representative plaintiff claimed that the defendant mischaracterized and inadequately disclosed its “Tax Recovery Charge” and “Service Fees,” including allegedly charging taxes based on a wholesale rate and embedding undisclosed profits within service fees.

The court held that the website Terms of Use formed part of the reservation contract but, properly interpreted, did not contain promises requiring disclosure of the calculation methodology, a breakdown of the combined fees, or the absence of a profit element.

The language merely described the nature of the charges and did not create contractual obligations consistent with the plaintiff’s interpretation.

Finding no breach of the express contractual terms, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Following a refusals motion in a certified class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the plaintiff sought costs of $14,696.25 on a partial indemnity basis.

The underlying refusals motion arose during discovery in advance of the defendant’s pending summary judgment motion and concerned questions about the calculation of a services fee and production of sample contracts.

Although the plaintiff had succeeded on the refusals motion, the defendant argued that costs should be limited and made costs in the cause pending the outcome of the summary judgment motion.

The court held that the claimed costs were excessive for the nature of the motion and accepted that costs should await the disposition of the summary judgment motion.

Costs were therefore fixed at $8,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Expedia Inc. and Expedia Canada Corporation, alleging that the defendants wrongfully charged hidden service fees and undisclosed profits on hotel bookings.

The court certified the action against Expedia Inc. for breach of contract, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

However, the court declined to certify claims under the Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act, and dismissed all claims against Expedia Canada Corporation as it was not a contracting party.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding on behalf of York University students whose classes were disrupted by a 2008 strike, alleging breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the claims improperly interfered with the university's academic discretion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's conclusion that the claims were barred by academic discretion and that the pleadings were insufficient to establish a contractual or statutory cause of action.

The appellants appealed a decision declining to certify a class action regarding an alleged design defect in digital cameras that caused an 'E18' error message.

The motions judge had struck the evidence of the appellants' proposed expert on the basis that he lacked the necessary qualifications in camera design.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the exclusion of the expert evidence or the conclusion that there was no basis in fact for the common issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a proposed class action concerning alleged defects in digital cameras, the court addressed the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought $764,944.37 on a partial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiffs were wholly unsuccessful and had advanced an overbroad claim lacking evidentiary foundation.

The court held that the case did not raise a novel legal issue or matter of public interest that would justify relaxing the ordinary costs regime under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court found the amount claimed excessive given the scale and complexity of the certification motion and the resources deployed by the defendants.

Balancing proportionality, fairness, and access to justice considerations, the court awarded the defendants $200,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed a decision denying certification of a class proceeding.

The appellant sought to proceed with the appeal based on a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that was not before the motions judge.

The Divisional Court held that it could only review the decision based on the original record and was not the proper forum for a first-instance decision on certification based on new pleadings.

Given the appellant's intention to seek an amendment regardless of the appeal's outcome, the appeal was deemed moot and stayed, with directions for the appellant to bring a motion to amend and certify in the court below.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application for pre-certification production of automotive pricing information from a non-party, JATO Dynamics Ltd. The appellants argued the motion judge applied the wrong test under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ignored factors from the Ballard Estate decision.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge conducted an appropriate Rule 30.10 analysis and properly exercised his discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.