Jamie A. Macdonald

The applicant, a former chartered professional accountant, sought a declaration that two negligence actions brought against him by separate clients constituted separate claims under two professional liability insurance policies, thereby providing access to $3,000,000 in combined coverage rather than $1,000,000 under a single policy.

The insurer argued the application was premature because determining whether the two actions arose from a "common set of circumstances" required factual findings that could prejudice the applicant's defence in the underlying actions.

The court agreed the application was premature, finding it inappropriate to determine whether the claims shared common circumstances based on an incomplete factual record where the underlying actions had not yet proceeded to discovery or trial.

This is a class action settlement approval motion involving sexual assault and voyeurism by a physician at a university health clinic.

The representative plaintiffs sought court approval of a $21,050,000 settlement on behalf of a class of approximately 150-200 patients who were photographed, videotaped, and/or sexually assaulted without their knowledge or consent.

The settlement was reached after extensive negotiations including mediation and three days of judicial pre-trial conferences.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, addressing concerns about the claims process, trauma-informed procedures, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, legal fees, and various disbursements.

This is a costs decision following a trial in which the plaintiff, a self-represented Ph.D. student, brought claims against his academic supervisor, the University of Ottawa, and a former friend.

The plaintiff alleged that his supervisor breached his responsibilities and conspired with the former friend to frustrate his academic progress and obtain free labour.

The plaintiff was entirely unsuccessful on all allegations.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct in adding his former friend as a defendant after the friend refused to provide false evidence constituted unreasonable and improper conduct that lengthened the proceedings.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis but the court awarded costs on an enhanced partial indemnity basis to account for the plaintiff's misconduct.

The plaintiff, Ahmed Abada, brought an action against his former PhD supervisor, the University of Ottawa, and a former friend, alleging damages for loss of earnings, general and punitive damages, and various torts arising from his removal from the PhD program.

The court found that the core of the dispute was academic in nature and that Abada had already availed himself of the university's internal appeal processes, which resolved the issues of bursary payment and academic progress.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no negligence, breach of contract, or tortious conduct by the defendants, and held that Abada was primarily responsible for his failure to complete the program due to personal and legal issues.

The applicant, Jennifer Carr, President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), brought an oppression application under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act against the directors (respondents) for placing her on "administrative leave" with pay.

Carr argued this was an effective suspension, contrary to PIPSC's By-laws, Policies, and the CNFPCA, and that she was denied procedural fairness.

The respondents argued it was a non-disciplinary administrative leave to protect investigations into Carr's conduct and that their actions were justified by the business judgment rule.

The court found that the administrative leave was functionally equivalent to a disciplinary suspension, breached Carr's reasonable expectations, and constituted oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct.

The court quashed the motion for administrative leave and reinstated Carr to her position.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim (the "Soods") brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent Celernus Investment Partners Inc. ("Celernus") from continuing power of sale proceedings on properties secured by a defaulted mortgage.

The Soods alleged breach of contract and breach of the duty of honest contractual performance by Celernus in their counterclaim.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for injunctions.

It found no serious question to be tried regarding Celernus's enforcement rights, determined that any potential loss to the Soods would be quantifiable in damages and thus not irreparable harm, and concluded that the balance of convenience favoured upholding the lender's contractual rights.

The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed, though a 60-day extension was granted to the Soods to arrange alternate financing.

The respondents, facing multiple class actions related to the manufacture and distribution of opioids over a 20-year period, sought coverage for defence costs from their successive primary and excess liability insurers.

The application judge allowed the respondents to select a single primary insurer to fund the entire defence, permitted the exhaustion of self-insured retentions (SIRs) using payments from other insurers, granted relief from forfeiture for pre-tender defence costs, and required insurers to sign a Defence Reporting Agreement (DRA) to receive privileged defence information.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurers' appeals in part, holding that defence costs must be allocated on a pro rata time-on-risk basis, that the insureds must exhaust each applicable SIR before an insurer's duty to defend is triggered, and that relief from forfeiture was unavailable for pre-tender costs.

The Court upheld the DRA requirement for insurers seeking to associate in the defence to mitigate reasonable apprehensions of conflict of interest.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the dismissal of motions by UD Trading Group and Rutmet for intervention and consolidation, and a cross-motion by TransAsia Private Capital Ltd. (TAP) for vexatious litigation.

The court had previously ordered a stay of proceedings on its own initiative.

The UD Group sought costs from TAP, while TAP primarily argued for each party to bear their own costs, or alternatively, sought partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court rejected the relevance of a subsequent Singapore judgment to the costs determination and ultimately ordered that all participating parties bear their own costs of the dismissed motions and cross-motion.

The applicants sought coverage under a trade credit insurance policy issued by Export Development Canada (EDC).

EDC denied coverage due to underlying disputes regarding the receivables owed by the UD Group to Rutmet.

Rutmet and the UD Group brought motions to intervene in the application and consolidate it with their own actions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to declare Rutmet and the UD Group vexatious litigants.

The court, on its own initiative, stayed the application pending the determination of the substantive disputes in ongoing foreign proceedings in Singapore and Dubai, finding that those jurisdictions had already been determined to be the appropriate forums.

Consequently, the motions to intervene and consolidate, as well as the cross-motion, were dismissed.

The applicant, a medical resident, was suspended and required to attend a health program.

He unsuccessfully appealed the suspension through the university's internal processes before filing an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant had unfairly split his case.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review post-Vavilov and upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not unreasonable to find that duplicative proceedings regarding the same underlying facts were unfair to the university.

The Applicants sought costs following a partial success in an application concerning insurance coverage, specifically the duty to defend and equitable allocation among insurers.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the Applicants against AIG and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA) for the duty to defend issue, finding the Applicants overwhelmingly successful on that point.

Costs related to the exhaustion of self-insured retentions (SIRs)/deductibles were deferred to a future trial of the issue, as neither party fully succeeded.

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. was ordered to pay reduced costs due to its partial success on a specific "Single Retention Endorsement" interpretation.

The defendant, Carleton University, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process or, alternatively, to strike the amended statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff's action stemmed from dissatisfaction with the university's investigation and ruling regarding sexual misconduct complaints against him.

The court found that the greater part of the plaintiff's claim constituted an abuse of process, being an attempt to collaterally attack the university's internal disciplinary decision, which should properly be challenged via judicial review.

However, the court also identified potential legitimate claims of negligence related to post-decision actions by the university.

Consequently, the court struck the plaintiff's amended statement of claim but granted him leave to file a new amended statement of claim focusing solely on the alleged post-decision negligence.

The appellants (UDG) appealed a motion judge's decision to permanently stay their Ontario proceeding in favour of ongoing litigation in Singapore and Dubai.

UDG had commenced the Ontario action seeking declarations against the respondents (TAP), effectively advancing as claims the same allegations they made as defences in the foreign proceedings.

The motion judge found that a related loan involving Rutmet was distinct from UDG's loans and that UDG's Ontario action was an attempt to gain a jurisdictional advantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her fact-finding, exercise of discretion, or analysis of attornment and forum selection clauses.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ontario proceedings remained stayed.

The applicants sought declarations concerning insurers’ duty to defend multiple opioid class actions, the insureds’ right to select a single defending policy, allocation of defence costs, exhaustion of SIRs and deductibles, and the terms on which insurers could receive defence-side reporting.

The court held that, subject to exhaustion of the relevant SIRs or deductibles, each applicant could select any single policy under which there was a duty to defend, and the selected insurer was required to pay all reasonable defence costs associated with covered claims even if those costs also furthered uncovered claims.

Time-on-risk allocation was accepted only as an equitable mechanism among insurers with concurrent obligations, not as a basis to reduce contractual defence obligations owed to the insureds.

The court further held that pre-tender defence costs could attract relief from forfeiture, that disputed SIR exhaustion issues required a trial, and that insurers seeking privileged defence-side reporting had to maintain robust ethical screens through a defence reporting agreement because both party-based and coverage-based conflicts were present.

The applicant, a medical resident diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, sought judicial review of a university committee's decision dismissing him from a pediatric neurology program for professionalism breaches.

He argued the committee failed to properly consider the duty to accommodate his disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the committee reasonably concluded that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship, as it would require constant one-on-one supervision to mitigate the risk to vulnerable patients.

The defendant brought a motion following a trial to seal certain exhibits to protect litigation privilege related to a separate class proceeding.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court noted that litigation privilege exists for the benefit of the plaintiff class in the separate proceeding, and therefore class counsel should have the opportunity to waive or defend it.

The motion was adjourned to be brought back with formal notice to class counsel.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded $328,396.82 for breach of contract, the parties made submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of approximately $500,000, while the defendant sought costs from the date of its Rule 49 offer.

The court noted that the plaintiffs' costs were driven by multiple unmeritorious causes of action and that the defendant's offer triggered the costs consequences of Rule 49.10(2).

Balancing the plaintiffs' partial success against the defendant's offer and the plaintiffs' unreasonable litigation conduct, the court exercised its discretion to award no costs to either party.

The plaintiff, a former law student, conceived the idea of using a class proceeding to resolve the issue of unpaid royalties to unlocatable musicians.

She brought the idea to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, which formed a consortium with class counsel.

The plaintiff and CIPPIC entered into an agreement guaranteeing her 5% of the counsel fees awarded.

The plaintiff later sued the university for $3.5 million, alleging breach of copyright, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, arguing she was entitled to a larger share.

The court dismissed the tort and equitable claims, finding no breach of copyright or fiduciary duty, and upheld the written agreement as binding and reasonable.

The plaintiff was awarded $328,396.82, representing her agreed 5% share of the counsel fees.

Export Development Canada (EDC) brought a motion to temporarily stay the respondent's application pending the resolution of a related action.

The respondent, a trade financing lender, sought a declaration regarding coverage under an export credit insurance policy issued by EDC.

EDC argued that the validity of a power of attorney, which was being challenged in the related action, needed to be determined first.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that EDC had delayed in taking its position, the related action was proceeding slowly, and a stay would cause significant prejudice to the respondent.

The defendant university brought a motion to set aside a noting of default in an action commenced by a self-represented plaintiff regarding the handling of complaints under a sexual violence policy.

The plaintiff noted the defendant in default without notice, shortly after the defendant had served a notice of motion to dismiss the claim.

The court granted the motion to set aside the noting of default, finding that the defendant clearly intended to defend the action, moved promptly to set aside the default, and the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice.