Hugh Merrill Desbrisay

The appellants, a corporate landlord and its principals, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order awarding the respondent tenants compensation for a bad faith eviction.

The appellants argued the LTB erred in finding they acted in bad faith when serving an N12 notice of termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 48(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act, an N12 notice is only available to individual landlords, not corporations.

The court found no error of law in the LTB's application of the statute or its findings of fact regarding the failure to occupy the unit.

This is a motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning automobile airbags that had been recalled.

The action, which had not been certified, sought compensation for pure economic loss.

Due to developments in case law, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification on pure economic loss for defective products, the litigation risk increased, and the prospects for certification and substantial economic recovery diminished.

Class Counsel sought leave to discontinue the action with prejudice and without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the test for discontinuance was satisfied, and putative class members were not prejudiced, as limitation periods remained suspended.

This appeal concerned a certified class action against Ford Motor Company regarding allegedly false or misleading fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels and in marketing materials for 2013 and 2014 vehicles.

The class action alleged breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection legislation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the class action, finding that Ford complied with mandatory federal guidelines for fuel consumption testing (2-Cycle Test) and that the representations were not false or misleading.

The court also addressed the "credulous and inexperienced consumer" standard, noting its applicability varies by statute, and found no deceptive non-disclosure.

Following a trial where the plaintiff achieved partial success in a partnership dispute, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendants had made a Rule 49 offer to settle 19 years into the litigation.

The court found that the defendants beat their offer when comparing the trial judgment plus the plaintiff's costs up to the date of the offer.

Applying Rule 49.10(2), the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date, and the defendants were entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to reduce either party's entitlement based on conduct or divided success, resulting in a net costs award of $179,174.88 payable to the plaintiff.

This certified class action concerned allegations of misleading advertising by Ford regarding fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels for 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles, claiming breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection statutes.

Both parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no contravention of the Competition Act due to Ford's compliance with federal guidelines and a lack of evidentiary support for a misleading general impression.

While provincial consumer protection laws allow for non-disclosure claims, the court found no legal obligation for Ford to provide additional disclosures (a "Second Label") beyond the EnerGuide Label and the referenced Fuel Consumption Guide, as there was no evidence that car buyers were deceived.

The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the class action, was granted.

The plaintiff, a former partner in a law firm with the defendants, brought an action for a declaration of partnership dissolution, an accounting, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of shares.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the plaintiff's departure from the partnership, precluding further adjustments or liability for a Vancouver office lease.

However, the court found the defendants liable for conversion of the plaintiff's personal shares held as security, awarding $65,226.15 in damages.

The court also awarded $50,000 in damages for breach of fiduciary duty due to the defendants' failure to disclose partnership draws taken shortly before the plaintiff's departure, though it rejected claims that this failure caused the plaintiff's subsequent significant tax liabilities.

At a case conference for a certified class action claiming $1.5 billion for understated fuel consumption, both parties had brought summary judgment motions.

Given the complexity of the case, which involves nearly two dozen expert witnesses and significant technical data, the court endorsed the parties' proposal to proceed with a 4-week hybrid trial rather than a 'trial in a box' summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff brought a last-minute motion to adjourn a virtual summary trial, arguing that credibility assessments and voluminous documents required an in-person hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that virtual trials permit effective credibility assessments and electronic document management is efficient.

The court emphasized the strict limits on trial adjournments under the Consolidated Practice Direction and the necessity of proceeding virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs brought two motions: one alleging Ford's non-compliance with an approved class action settlement regarding exhaust odours in 2011-2015 Ford Explorers, and another seeking additional class counsel fees.

The court dismissed the non-compliance motion, finding no evidence that Ford breached its good faith obligations or that class members were deprived of proper repairs.

For the fees motion, the court awarded a modest additional amount of $75,000 plus HST, finding the initial request for $1.2 million excessive given the limited actual financial benefits to the class members from the settlement's reimbursement program.

A case conference was held in a class action proceeding to address procedural matters.

The court approved the agreed-upon Notice Plan for the Notice of Certification.

Additionally, the court set a timetable for the plaintiff's upcoming summary judgment motion, granting the defendants until June 15, 2020, to serve their responding materials due to the complexity of the damages calculation and multijurisdictional analysis required.

The moving party, a car dealer, sought to set aside an interlocutory injunction preventing the transfer of a $1.5 million Ford GT 'super car'.

The plaintiffs alleged the moving party participated in a civil conspiracy to circumvent a 24-month restriction on the vehicle's resale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no new facts or unforeseen change in circumstances since the injunction was granted, and held that the conspiracy claim raised triable issues inappropriate for determination on a motion to set aside an injunction.

The plaintiffs in a class action against Ford Motor Company sought court approval of a settlement agreement concerning allegedly defective Powershift Dual-Clutch Transmissions in Ford Focus and Fiesta vehicles.

The settlement, reached after mediation, provided varied compensation to class members on a claims-made basis, including cash payments for multiple repairs or alternative benefits like partial refunds for persistently troubled vehicles.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting its advantages over individual litigation.

The court also approved class counsel fees (a combination of defendant contribution and a percentage of claims) and honoraria for representative plaintiffs, while denying late opt-out requests.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Ford Motor Company and related entities, alleging false, misleading, or deceptive representations regarding the fuel consumption of 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles.

The claim, for $1.5 billion, was based on violations of the Competition Act and the Consumer Protection Act, asserting that Ford understated fuel consumption by using an outdated 2-Cycle Test instead of the more accurate 5-Cycle Test.

The court certified the action, finding that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a national class action against Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, concerning alleged non-repairable defects in the transmissions of Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta automobiles.

The parties had reached a tentative settlement.

The court granted the consent order for certification, finding that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action (breach of contract/warranty and Civil Code of Quebec provisions), an identifiable class, common issues, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court also approved the form and plan for distribution of the notice to the class.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to approve a national settlement regarding alleged exhaust leaks in certain Ford Explorer vehicles.

The court approved the discontinuance of claims regarding other Ford models, added a new representative plaintiff, and certified the class for settlement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlement, the notice plan, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The moving parties, plaintiffs in a parallel proposed class action in Saskatchewan, sought leave to intervene in the certification motion of an Ontario class action concerning the same subject matter.

The Ontario plaintiffs opposed the intervention.

The court held that while it had inherent jurisdiction to grant standing to intervene, the moving parties failed to show they would make a useful contribution to the certification motion.

The court found the intervention would likely delay proceedings and potentially prejudice a portion of the class.

The motion for leave to intervene was dismissed.

The applicants sought a representation order under Rule 10.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permitting them to represent 416 claimants who had used payroll processing services and alleged that trust funds were misapplied by a bank.

The underlying dispute concerned funds withdrawn from employers’ accounts for payroll and tax remittances that were deposited into mixed trust accounts and partially applied to reduce the payroll processor’s indebtedness to the bank or transferred to a related entity.

The bank opposed the representation order, arguing that two separate transactions created distinct issues among claimants.

The court held that common issues existed because liability for the alleged breaches of trust would affect all claimants collectively and distribution of any recovery would be shared.

A representation order was granted and a related unopposed motion concerning distribution of funds held by a government agency was also authorized.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the respondent's class action claim, the appellants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, administering the class proceedings fund, argued against a costs award under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, claiming the case involved novel issues and public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the case merely applied existing Supreme Court precedent.

Costs were awarded to the appellants, fixed at $55,000 for the appeal and $125,000 for the action.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the administration fee charged by the defendant satellite television providers to delinquent subscribers constituted a criminal rate of interest under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.

The Court held that the administration fee was a legitimate estimate of collection costs and was not paid or payable for the advancing of credit, and therefore did not constitute interest under s. 347.

The defendants brought an unopposed motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a class action.

The underlying issue was whether an administration fee charged for late payments constituted 'interest' under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and noting the importance of the issue for suppliers generally.

The appeal will be heard alongside the defendants' appeal as of right from the order granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.