Jeffrey Claydon

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care (LTC) homes.

The plaintiffs alleged gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The court certified the class action solely on the negligence/gross negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care, finding it arguable that the Long-Term Care Homes Act imposes a private law duty of care on the Minister to protect LTC residents.

The fiduciary duty and Charter claims were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The class was limited to LTC residents and their families, excluding visitors.

Two competing class counsel groups sought carriage of a proposed class action against the Province of Ontario regarding COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care homes.

The Nisbet Action proposed suing Ontario solely for its several liability to avoid third-party claims and expedite certification.

The Robertson Action proposed a conventional joint and several liability approach, expecting third-party claims between Ontario and long-term care operators.

The court granted carriage to the Robertson Action, finding that the several liability approach offered no early-stage advantage and would create significant disadvantages in later-stage litigation, including potential unfairness to the defendant and risks of unrecovered losses for class members.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought an application seeking a declaration that the six-month temporary suspension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic should not be counted in limitation period calculations going forward.

The application was brought against 'Persons Unknown' with no live dispute or adversarial parties.

The court dismissed the application, holding that it is constitutionally inappropriate for the court to render an abstract legal opinion to endorse the executive branch's view of its regulatory efforts without a real dispute between interested parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to appoint Chief Kirby Whiteduck to represent the 'Algonquins' in an action challenging Ontario's decision to grant harvesting rights to two Métis communities in a settlement area currently under treaty negotiation.

The Métis Nation opposed the motion, arguing the class was insufficiently defined and the proposed representative lacked authority.

The court found that the class of collective rights holders was sufficiently defined, the claim was collective in nature, and the balance of convenience favoured appointing the proposed representative.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff, Tarik Bouragba, brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim and lift a stay of proceedings previously ordered.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to prohibit the plaintiff's father, a non-lawyer, from representing him, and to stay the proceeding due to unpaid costs orders.

The court granted the cross-motion prohibiting the father from acting as legal representative.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings, finding the proposed amendments lacked material facts, were incomprehensible, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court ordered that all outstanding costs awards must be paid before the plaintiffs can bring any further motions.

The applicant, charged with impaired operation by drug and taking a motor vehicle without consent, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel.

The court applied the three-part test for a Rowbotham order.

While the applicant had been refused Legal Aid, the court found he failed to establish impecuniosity, as he had the ability to work and earn funds before trial.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised without counsel, given the straightforward nature of the case, his cognitive abilities, and the trial judge's duty to assist an unrepresented accused.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants, the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa and the police, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent and breached their duties by failing to investigate an assault by his ex-wife in 1995.

The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the assault and the police's refusal to lay charges by 2002 at the latest.

Consequently, the limitation period had expired long before the action was commenced in 2016.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, concluding it was plain and obvious the claim had no chance of success and was an abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The accused brought a procedural motion within a Rowbotham application seeking permission to file his Legal Aid Ontario file with the court without disclosing it to the Crown.

He argued the file contained presumptively privileged information and disclosure could prejudice trial fairness given the fraud-related charges.

The Crown agreed that privileged portions could be redacted and undertook not to use fresh disclosure from the file at trial.

The court held that relevant non-privileged information from the Legal Aid file may be necessary to assess a Rowbotham application and that the adversarial process requires disclosure to permit cross‑examination and submissions.

Given the availability of redactions and the Crown’s undertaking, the court found the risk of prejudice minimal and rejected the request to file the materials ex parte.

The plaintiff, an inmate and member of the Malvern Crew street gang, was severely beaten by a rival gang member while housed at the Don Jail.

He sued the Crown in negligence for placing him in the same unit as the rival gang member.

The court found that the Crown owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to consider inmate compatibility when applying its numeric balancing policy for housing gang members.

The Crown knew or ought to have known of the severe security threat posed by the rival gang member.

The court found the Crown liable for the assault, but reduced the damages by 15% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in failing to request protective custody.