Jennifer Dent

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against Smith & Wesson for design negligence following the Danforth Shooting, where a stolen M&P®40 handgun without "authorized user" (smart gun) technology was used to kill and injure multiple people.

The plaintiffs argued that Smith & Wesson was negligent in failing to incorporate authorized user technology into the handgun's design.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

Specifically, the plaintiffs did not provide expert evidence from a firearm design expert to establish some basis in fact that the absence of authorized user technology constituted a design defect, or that an alternative design was feasible without impairing the handgun's utility for its intended military and police users.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

In a proposed class action against a firearm manufacturer for design negligence following a mass shooting, the defendant moved to strike portions of the plaintiffs' layperson affidavit evidence filed for the certification motion.

The impugned evidence included foreign patents for 'smart gun' technology and firearm-related crime statistics.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that expert evidence in handgun design was required to establish some basis in fact for the design negligence claim, and a layperson could not provide the necessary factual logic or theory.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file additional expert evidence and rescheduled the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought court approval to dismiss his proposed class action regarding the recalled drug Valsartan.

Following a carriage agreement with another class action and discovering that one defendant did not manufacture the active ingredient, the plaintiff sought to dismiss the action against all defendants without costs.

The court approved the dismissal under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding no prejudice to putative class members as other actions were proceeding across Canada.

The plaintiff sought approval of a class action settlement regarding allegations that the defendants' premium pet food products did not always contain the advertised premium ingredients.

The settlement provided for nominal individual compensation to registered class members, a cy-près payment of $375,968 to veterinary schools and an animal charity, and injunctive relief ensuring product specifications match packaging claims.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the benefits outweighed the risks of continued litigation.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $295,000 and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, both to be paid separately by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of settlement.

The proposed settlement involved modest payments to registered class members without a claims process, and cy pres payments to universities researching pet health.

The court found the streamlined process fair and reasonable, certified a national class, and approved the notice process and schedule for the settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against the manufacturer of a handgun used in a mass shooting, alleging negligent design, public nuisance, and strict liability for failing to incorporate authorized user ('smart gun') technology.

The defendant moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the negligence claim, finding it fell within the established duty of care categories for goods dangerous per se and products liability.

However, the court struck the claims for public nuisance and strict liability, concluding they were legally untenable in the context of product liability.