Jacob Eli Klugsberg

The appellant, Bishop Girgis, appealed a lower court decision that interpreted and rectified a will to distribute proceeds from a property sale to the estate of the deceased's brother, rather than to the residuary beneficiary (Bishop Girgis).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the rectification on the basis that it gave effect to the testator's plain intention, despite disagreeing with the application judge's specific analytical path.

Costs were awarded against the appellant.

The Applicant, Joao Ramos, sought an urgent application date and an interim Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) regarding a property he claims to have jointly purchased with the Respondents, Laurentino Neves and Mark Neves.

Despite being served, Laurentino Neves did not attend the case conference, stating he needed time to retain counsel.

The court found a triable issue regarding the Applicant's interest in the property and significant harm to the Applicant if the CPL was not granted, particularly given the Respondent's non-attendance and prior conduct.

The court scheduled the application for hearing on an expedited basis and granted the interim CPL, reserving costs.

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.

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 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.

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.

This is Part 7 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning multi-jurisdictional class actions (Brazeau, Reddock, Gallone).

The decision addresses a consensual motion by the parties to streamline the payment process for "Track 2, Box 1 only Claims" under the previously approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The courts approved an order confirming that payments to class members, class counsel, and the Class Proceedings Fund will be made periodically (every 75 days after a cut-off date) without requiring further motions for confirmation, thereby enhancing judicial economy and access to justice.

This is Part 6 of a joint decision concerning the ongoing administration of multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec) against the Attorney General of Canada regarding administrative segregation.

The parties brought a joint, consensual motion to amend sections 10.1 and 11.2 of the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aim to resolve issues arising from "BRG Crossover" claimants (those with placements in both Ontario and Quebec) and misallocated claimants, by allowing claimants to elect the court (Ontario or Quebec) that will review their claims, provided there is a connection to that jurisdiction.

The court approved the amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of class members and conducive to cost-effective and expeditious claim determination.

This is an appeal in a class action concerning an infectious disease outbreak at a pain care centre.

The appellant, Dr. Stephen James, challenged the trial judge's findings of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and the application of the limitation period, as well as the award of punitive damages and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusions that Dr. James breached the standard of care by failing to consistently use aseptic technique and to report/investigate infections.

The court affirmed the use of statistical evidence to establish a rebuttable presumption of causation for the class, and found no error in the breach of fiduciary duty or the appropriateness of punitive damages.

The appeal on costs, including the order for Dr. James to pay the successful co-defendant nurses' costs, was also dismissed.

The Joint Liquidators of Stanford International Bank Limited (SIB) appealed the dismissal of their negligence claim against The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank).

SIB was a vehicle for a massive Ponzi scheme.

The Liquidators claimed TD Bank was negligent in providing correspondent banking services by failing to detect and protect SIB from insider abuse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that TD Bank did not owe a novel duty of care to monitor SIB for internal fraud, as this fell outside the scope of TD Bank's undertaking as a correspondent bank.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's alternative finding that even if a duty existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, and that the trial judge's procedural rulings regarding witness recall were fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is Part 2 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning the Brazeau, Reddock, and Gallone class actions.

The courts finalized and approved the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, which governs the distribution of the aggregate damages award and the procedures for determining individual issues.

The decision addresses submissions from the parties on a provisional draft protocol and resolves a late-arriving dispute between Class Counsel and the Law Foundation of Ontario regarding funding for the individual issues phase by deleting contentious provisions.

In a class action alleging bacterial infections from epidural injections, the defendant physician, Dr. James, moved for documentary discovery and oral examinations of class members.

The court, considering the plaintiff's novel epidemiological causation theory, granted further documentary production for relevant, non-duplicative information.

However, it denied oral examinations for most class members, ordering written interrogatories for a selected sample instead, citing concerns about litigation delay, expense, and the passive role of class members.

The representative plaintiff could be re-examined orally.

The plaintiffs and defendants brought competing motions regarding the approval of discovery plans in a civil action initiated five years prior.

The plaintiffs proposed a broad plan seeking extensive documentation from 2008 to the present, including personal financial and travel records.

The defendants opposed this, proposing a more limited plan tailored to the relevant period of the relationships (2010-2015).

Applying principles of common sense and proportionality, the court found the plaintiffs' proposed plan to be excessively broad and not aligned with the "needs not wants" approach to discovery, as articulated in *Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation* and *Hryniak v. Mauldin*.

The defendants' more proportional and relevant discovery plan was approved, and the parties were ordered to adhere to a consent timetable.