Henry Michael Gilmour Rosenberg

An individual claimant in a class action regarding administrative segregation brought a motion seeking approval to use confidential placement data of other inmates.

The claimant's counsel had inadvertently gained access to and downloaded this data from the claims administrator's database due to a legacy system error.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no basis under PIPEDA, the Privacy Act, or the Class Proceedings Act to permit the disclosure of the personal information, as it would not advance access to justice and would violate class members' privacy rights.

Furthermore, the court found the data was not relevant to the claimant's individual claim.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application seeking to set aside employment agreements between the respondent corporation and an employee, alleging the agreements were oppressive and breached a family law undertaking.

They also appealed the refusal to remove the respondent as a trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings that the undertaking had expired, the negotiations were not secretive, and the agreements were beneficial to the corporation.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision not to remove the trustee.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board and several Chiefs of Police regarding the practice of 'carding' or street checks.

The plaintiffs alleged that the practice disproportionately targeted Black and Indigenous individuals, violating their Charter rights and constituting systemic negligence and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including establishing a valid cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and suitable representative plaintiffs.

The motion for certification was granted.

The applicants sought court review of legal fees claimed by six lawyers (the Legal Team) who represented the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund in litigation to enforce the Crown's obligations under the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

The Legal Team claimed $510 million as a 5% contingent success fee on a $10 billion settlement.

The court found the Partial Contingency Fee Agreement was neither fair when signed nor reasonable at the time of hearing.

The court determined the Legal Team acted in conflict of interest when advising clients on their own fees and failed to ensure clients received independent legal advice.

The court assessed the fair and reasonable value of the Legal Team's services at approximately $40 million (double their billable fees of $23 million plus $6.5 million in disbursements already paid), rejecting the $510 million claim as champertous and disproportionate to the settlement amount.

The applicants brought preliminary objections to the admissibility of two pieces of evidence in an application proceeding concerning contingent fee recognition.

The respondent law firm and lawyers sought recognition of contingent fees claimed under a Partial Contingency Agreement dated June 17, 2011.

The court ruled on the admissibility of an expert report from a former Federal Court judge and a third affidavit from one of the respondent lawyers.

The court found that expert evidence on the complexity of the case, risks involved, and results achieved was not necessary, as these matters were within the experience and knowledge of the court and were adequately addressed through extensive evidence and comprehensive legal submissions.

The court also found the expert lacked the requisite qualifications to opine on the specific topics.

The court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the third affidavit pending further consideration of its relevance.

The decision addresses a motion by David Peter McMath and Darcy Loyie to stay their motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision dismissing their individual claims for additional damages arising from administrative segregation, pending the outcome of other test cases.

The court applies the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay and finds that while there is a serious question to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favours a stay.

The motion is dismissed.

This decision approves a class action settlement and distribution protocol regarding predatory and unconscionable equipment lease agreements, including the registration of Notices of Security Interests (NOSIs) on consumers’ homes.

The court finds the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the risks of continued litigation, the insolvency of several defendants, and the benefits achieved, including monetary compensation, lease cancellations, and legislative reform.

The court also approves class counsel fees, disbursements, a Class Proceedings Fund levy, and an honorarium for the lead plaintiff.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Steele J. dated October 30, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

This decision concerns a certified class proceeding that is progressing towards a settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to appoint Verita Global as the administrator for the implementation of the proposed settlement.

Class counsel, after a request for proposals process, recommended Verita Global based on its extensive experience, capacity to serve vulnerable individuals, communication abilities, reporting, budget, and cybersecurity certification.

The court found class counsel's choice appropriate and approved the appointment of Verita Global as the settlement administrator.

The court addressed two related putative class proceedings concerning predatory equipment lease agreements.

The plaintiffs sought to amend pleadings, add parties, consolidate the actions, certify the consolidated proceeding for settlement, and approve the notice plan.

The court granted all motions, finding that the criteria for class certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met in the context of a proposed settlement, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially given ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The notice plan for the settlement approval hearing was also approved.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 2023 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to claim a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property owned by the plaintiff, and for leave to issue and register the CPL.

The parties, who are family members, were involved in a dispute over pooled funds and property investments.

The court found that while there was a triable issue regarding the defendants' claim to an interest in the property, the equities favoured the plaintiff.

The property was not unique, damages would be a satisfactory remedy, and the harm to the plaintiff in granting the CPL outweighed the harm to the defendants.

The motion to issue the CPL was dismissed.

This decision, Part 9 of a series in a multi-jurisdictional class action, addresses bitterly contested motions by both the Attorney General of Canada and Class Counsel to revise the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The dispute centered on the scope of reply position statements for Track 2 claims.

Canada sought to limit replies strictly to mitigating factors and causation rebuttal, while Class Counsel argued for broader replies to new issues raised by Canada.

The court denied both parties' specific requests, instead directing a revision to allow Canada a right of sur-reply if a claimant files a reply, and imposing an increased payment to the Manager/Expert in such instances.

The ruling aims to ensure fair, efficient, and proportionate litigation while discouraging procedural abuses by either party.

In a consolidated class action, Class Counsel sought partial indemnity costs for their work on a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the costs for DIIP development had been prepaid as part of prior counsel fee approvals.

The decision emphasized that DIIP creation is a necessary and collaborative aspect of class proceedings, not an event warranting additional 'success' costs, and clarified that prior judicial statements about future payments referred to costs already accounted for.

This is Part 10 of a series of joint decisions in multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec).

Class Counsel sought further revisions to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP), specifically to increase the $6,000 costs cap for Track 2 claims to $12,000, and to add a clause about Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applying to Track 2/3 claims, and to apply ordinary costs rules for contested Track 2 motions.

The court approved the latter two unopposed requests but denied the request to increase the costs cap, emphasizing proportionality and the need to simplify procedures rather than increase costs.

The plaintiffs in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation brought a consent motion to vary the Distribution and Issues Protocol to address late claims.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec jointly approved the consent order, granting leave for certain class members to file late claims and setting out the process for distributing compensation to those claimants.

The applicants, including several current and former sex workers and a sex worker advocacy organization, brought a constitutional challenge against several provisions of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA), which criminalized the purchase of sexual services and related activities.

The applicants argued that the provisions violated sections 7, 2(b), 2(d), and 15 of the Charter by replicating the harms of the previous prostitution laws struck down in Bedford.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the provisions did not violate sections 7, 2(d), or 15 of the Charter.

While the Attorney General conceded that certain provisions violated section 2(b) freedom of expression, the court found these limits were demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter as a proportionate response to the pressing and substantial objective of reducing the demand for sex work and protecting vulnerable persons from exploitation.

The applicant, a self-represented prisoner and class member in a class action regarding administrative segregation, brought a motion seeking to challenge and amend the court-approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant lacked standing to seek amendments as he had not opted out of the class action and was bound by the outcomes negotiated by representative plaintiffs.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant's recent placement in administrative segregation occurred after the class period had closed, placing it outside the scope of the class action, and that his criticisms of the protocol were based on a misunderstanding of its revisions.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to compel the class action administrator (Epiq) to disclose contact information of "Unlawfully at Large" (UAL) claimants to law enforcement.

The class members, through their counsel, opposed this, arguing it was an improper use of class action administration powers and a violation of Charter rights, suggesting that the Criminal Code's production order process was the appropriate mechanism.

The court, in a joint decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec, denied the Attorney General's broad request.

Instead, it granted a modified order, allowing disclosure only if the Attorney General first obtains a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, thereby upholding the proper legal process for obtaining such information while acknowledging the Attorney General's good faith in bringing the motion.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard unopposed applications by the Joint Committee in the national Hepatitis C class actions (Parsons and Kreppner) to allocate approximately $160 million in "Excess Capital" from the settlement fund.

The Joint Committee proposed four recommendations to increase various benefits for approved class members and family members, including lump sum payments, loss of guidance/care/companionship awards, lost pension benefits, and loss of services rates.

The court granted the application, finding the proposed allocations reasonable, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the settlement agreement's purpose of bridging compensatory gaps.