Jamie Shilton

On a motion under s. 13 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the defendant sought temporary stays of numerous individual actions arising from the same alleged correctional-facility incident that underlay a proposed class proceeding.

The court applied the Hollinger prerequisites as a conjunctive test and held that stays should be granted for plaintiffs who consented or took no position, because there was substantial overlap, a common factual background, efficiency gains, and no evidence of prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motions as against the opposing plaintiffs, finding compelling evidence of litigation autonomy, ongoing physical and psychological harm, financial vulnerability, and prejudice from delay.

The court concluded that case management, rather than blanket stays, could address duplication concerns for the opposing actions.

In a proposed class proceeding arising from events at a correctional centre, the defendant moving party sought a publication ban over inmate names and identifying visual features appearing in court-filed images and video.

Applying the Sherman Estate framework governing limits on the open court principle, the court held that dissemination of detainees' identities and images while in states of undress posed a serious risk to the important public interest in personal privacy and dignity.

The court found the requested order necessary because no practical lesser alternative would adequately prevent the harm, and concluded the order was proportionate because it protected dignity while preserving public access to the broader circumstances of the events.

The motion was granted and no costs were ordered.

The defendant, Ontario, brought a motion to defer filing its statement of defence in a proposed class proceeding concerning the alleged maltreatment of inmates at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

Ontario argued that exceptional circumstances existed, including the need to await an appellate decision in a related criminal matter and to investigate recent amendments to the statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances were not exceptional and that requiring the statement of defence would advance the litigation, frame the issues for certification, and serve the public interest in timely justice.

The plaintiff brought motions for approval of a settlement agreement, a discretionary fund, class counsel fees, and a notice program in a class action concerning allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implants.

The court approved the claims-made settlement and the $750,000 discretionary fund, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks.

The court also approved a 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $1.25 million contribution from the defendants towards fees and disbursements.

However, the court dismissed the representative plaintiff's request for a $7,500 honorarium, finding no exceptional circumstances of personal hardship.

This class action concerned historical sexual abuse perpetrated by Ralph Rowe, an Anglican priest and Scout leader, against Indigenous boys in remote communities.

The court approved a $13.25 million settlement, which included a unique trauma-informed claims process with two tracks (simplified Schedule A up to $140,000, and more rigorous Schedule B up to $350,000).

The settlement also provided for apologies from the Anglican Church of Canada and Scouts Canada, and funding for counselling.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, emphasizing the benefits of timely resolution and the innovative, claimant-centric claims protocol.

This decision addresses two class actions, Francis v. Ontario and Chandra v. Ontario, concerning administrative segregation of inmates in Ontario correctional facilities.

The court heard motions for approval of a settlement in Chandra and a comprehensive claims protocol (Francis/Chandra Protocol) for both actions.

The Protocol establishes a three-track claims program for distributing aggregate damages and assessing individual claims.

The court granted both motions, finding the settlement and protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, commending counsel for their diligent and exemplary work in pursuing access to justice.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certification motion for a proposed class action against a car rental company.

The proposed class consisted of branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as managers and improperly denied overtime pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims lacked sufficient commonality due to the substantial variability in the job functions and duties actually performed by the proposed class members across different branch locations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to certify aggregate damages and the finding that British Columbia class members had no cause of action.

The Representative Plaintiff in a class action regarding youth segregation brought a motion for directions concerning the interpretation of the Claims Procedure in the approved Settlement Agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the Claims Administrator and Adjudicator could consider youth segregation placements documented in a claimant's Youth Records but not explicitly listed in their Claim Form.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and concluded that the Settlement Agreement did not restrict the use of Youth Records to merely corroborating the Claim Form.

The court directed that the Administrator and Adjudicator may award compensation for all eligible placements documented in the Youth Records, regardless of whether they were referred to in the Claim Form.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a car rental company, alleging systemic misclassification of branch managers and seeking unpaid overtime.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues regarding misclassification could not be resolved on a class-wide basis due to significant variability in the actual job functions performed by managers across different branch locations.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's proposed methodologies for calculating aggregate damages, which relied on computer log-in data and anonymous crowdsourced internet reviews.

This was a consent motion for certification for settlement purposes in a class action.

The plaintiff, Adrian Chandra, sued the Ontario provincial government for negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter regarding the operation and management of provincial correctional institutions from September 18, 2018, to August 18, 2021, specifically concerning administrative segregation (solitary confinement).

This action effectively continued the class period from a previous case, Francis v. Ontario.

A settlement agreement was reached, adding an additional $13 million in aggregate damages for class members and establishing a protocol for distribution and individual issue resolution.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied and granted the motion.

The Law Foundation of Ontario brought a motion for directions regarding its statutory authority to administer the Class Proceedings Fund during the individual issues stage of a class action.

The court held that the Law Foundation has the statutory authority to provide litigation support and adverse costs protection for individual issues trials, but is not obliged to do so even if it funded the common issues stage.

Furthermore, the court determined that the Law Foundation's statutory levy applies to all recoveries, including individual issues judgments, regardless of whether it provides funding for that specific stage.

The plaintiff moved for approval of a $15 million settlement in a class action against Ontario concerning the practice of youth segregation in provincial youth justice facilities.

Class counsel also sought approval of a $4.05 million fee and a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks regarding whether youth segregation amounted to unconstitutional solitary confinement.

The court approved the settlement, the counsel fees, and the honorarium.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pierce J. dated May 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The defendants in two related class actions brought motions to compel the representative plaintiffs to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The refused questions related to the plaintiffs' individual medical and employment histories, reasons for detention, and other individual experiences.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, holding that discovery prior to a common issues trial is limited to the common issues.

The court found that the individual damages questions were not relevant to the common issues of systemic negligence or aggregate damages, which must be determined without reference to the circumstances of individual class members.

The parties agreed upon a timetable leading up to a certification motion in a class proceeding.

The court endorsed the agreed-upon schedule, setting dates for the exchange of motion records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the motion returnable for three days in May and June 2022.