Janeta Zurakowski

The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against it under Rule 21.

The plaintiff, W.B., alleged sexual assault by John C. Leek, a former teacher.

W.B. had contacted Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board in 2001 to report Leek's past misconduct, but was never a student at any of their schools, nor did the alleged assaults occur while Leek was employed by Hamilton.

The court found that W.B. lacked private interest standing to sue Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board and that the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action in negligence, as no duty of care was established.

The motion to strike was granted, and the claim against Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Christopher Brazeau and David Kift, sought an award of costs totaling $1,164,059.22 in partial indemnity costs and disbursements after a partially successful summary judgment motion in a certified class proceeding against the Attorney General of Canada.

The Federal Government argued for each party to bear their own costs or a significant reduction, citing divided success, reduction in class period, dismissal of certain claims, and abandonment of health care claims during the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $800,000, all-inclusive, comprising $600,000 for legal expenses and $200,000 for disbursements, finding them to be the successful party despite divided success, but adjusting the award due to the abandonment of health care claims and insufficient documentation for disbursements.

The Representative Plaintiffs sought prejudgment and postjudgment interest on a $20 million Charter damages award previously granted for deterrence and vindication in a class action concerning administrative segregation of mentally ill inmates.

The Federal Government opposed the award of interest.

The court determined that Charter damages awarded purely for deterrence and vindication are functionally similar to punitive damages, on which interest is generally precluded by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to disallow interest, emphasizing that the $20 million award was non-compensatory, intended to remedy societal harm and ensure future Charter compliance, rather than to compensate individual class members for pecuniary loss.

Consequently, no prejudgment or postjudgment interest was awarded.

This decision grants an unopposed motion for class certification in an action against the Province of Ontario concerning the alleged unlawful use of youth segregation in justice facilities.

The class is defined as persons under 18 placed in youth segregation for more than 6 consecutive hours without meaningful human contact between April 1, 2004, and December 17, 2018.

The common issues certified include claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This motion concerned the certification of a proposed class action against the provincial government regarding the negligent operation and administration of social assistance programs for developmentally disabled adults.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, primarily due to indeterminate waitlists and flawed prioritization for approved services.

The court certified the class action, allowing the negligence and Charter claims to proceed, but struck the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Common issues related to duty of care, Charter rights, and the availability of punitive damages were certified, while aggregate damages and the amount of punitive damages were not.

The plaintiff, Conrey Francis, brought a proposed class action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, alleging negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to the use of Administrative Segregation (solitary confinement) in correctional facilities.

The parties sought approval of a consent order certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including an identifiable class, common issues of fact or law, preferability of a class proceeding, and an adequate representative plaintiff.

The certification motion was granted.