Jessica Lam

The Bayer and Johnson & Johnson Defendants brought motions under Rule 59.06 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to amend or vary a previous order dated October 4, 2023, which had declined to dismiss the plaintiff's extensive claims under Rule 2.1.

The defendants argued that the prior decision contained errors or oversights, specifically regarding the omission of a Federal Court Statement of Claim and the court's comments on limitation periods.

The court dismissed both motions, reiterating that Rule 59.06 is intended for clerical or accidental errors in memorializing a decision, not for re-evaluating the reasoning itself.

The court clarified that its previous comments on limitation periods were not a final determination and did not preclude the defendants from raising such a defence at a later stage.

The plaintiffs in a proposed consumer class action regarding alleged engine defects in Ford vehicles sought approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Woodsford.

The court found the agreement necessary to facilitate access to justice, noting the high costs of class proceedings and expert evidence.

The agreement provided Woodsford with a 10% return on recovery, which the court found reasonable and on par with the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The motion was granted, and the funding agreement was approved.

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

The defendants in a proposed national class action regarding baby powder and ovarian cancer requested that their motion to dismiss or stay the action for delay or abuse of process be heard before the plaintiffs' certification motion.

The defendants argued that the Ontario action was duplicative of parallel class actions in other provinces and had languished for over five years.

The court applied the Cannon factors and determined that the stay/dismissal motion should be heard simultaneously with the certification motion, as doing so would promote judicial economy and allow the court to better assess the preferable procedure and multi-jurisdictional issues.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.

The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.

The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.

The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.

The court awarded costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a class action.

The defendants sought $255,707.13, while the plaintiffs argued for no costs or $75,000, citing public interest and novel legal issues.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no public interest dimension as no losses were sustained and the defendant reacted responsibly to the cyber-hack.

The court also found the legal issues not novel, despite involving a cyber-attack, as similar incidents have led to numerous class actions.

Applying its established approach to costs in certification motions, the court adhered to the Grid rates for hourly fees, explicitly rejecting the defendants' argument for 60% of actual rates.

After considering a Grid-compliant outline of $176,459 and a 10% reduction for additional work attributed to the defendant, the court fixed an all-inclusive costs award of $160,000 to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

An anonymous hacker stole personal information from Casino Rama's computer system, affecting customers, employees, and suppliers.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action for negligence, breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, and other privacy torts.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The court found that claims for breach of confidence and publicity given to private life were bound to fail.

While negligence, breach of contract, and intrusion upon seclusion were deemed viable causes of action, the common issues requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was not satisfied.

The court determined that the proposed common issues required too much individual inquiry, particularly regarding the duty and standard of care, and the varying sensitivity of stolen information.

The class definition was also found to be overbroad, specifically including unionized employees whose claims fell under exclusive labour arbitration jurisdiction.

Various public interest groups brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in a Charter challenge regarding the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to administrative tribunals.

The court granted leave to intervene on consent to several groups.

For the contested proposed intervenors, the court granted leave to the Ontario Judicial Council and Justice for Children and Youth, finding they would bring unique perspectives and expertise.

The court denied leave to the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario and the Workers' Health and Safety Legal Clinic, finding their proposed contributions would be largely repetitive of positions already represented by other parties and intervenors.

The applicant moved to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the respondent Attorney General.

The underlying application involves a Charter challenge to the application of FIPPA to certain quasi-judicial tribunals.

The parties had previously agreed to limit the scope of the application to 16 specific tribunals.

The impugned affidavit evidence detailed the procedures of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which was not one of the 16 listed tribunals.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence improperly expanded the scope of the application contrary to a prior case management endorsement.

The applicant, who was separately indicted for first-degree murder, sought a partial or delayed publication ban on her anticipated testimony at her co-accused's trial.

She argued that pre-trial publicity and media reports of her evidence would taint the jury pool for her upcoming trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding no real and substantial risk to her fair trial rights.

The court held that reasonable alternative measures, such as the challenge for cause process and strong judicial directions to the jury, were sufficient to ensure an impartial jury.

The applicant sought declaratory relief that certain software licensing agreements were not part of any contract governing its use of software used in manufacturing systems and that it owed no further licensing fees.

The dispute arose after the respondents conducted an audit and claimed additional fees based on a per‑core licensing model introduced after a software upgrade.

The court held that the application procedure under Rule 14.05(3) was inappropriate where key facts regarding delivery and acceptance of licensing terms were disputed.

Because the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to declaratory relief and the evidentiary record was incomplete and conflicting, the court declined to determine the contractual issues on the application record.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant brought an application under section 23 of the Solicitors Act for a declaration that legal services provided by the respondent lawyer in an underlying veterinary malpractice action were rendered on a pro bono basis.

The respondent argued the oral retainer was a contingency fee arrangement and billed the applicant $34,000 after the action settled.

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving the terms of the oral retainer over the client's understanding.

The court declared the services were provided pro bono and ordered the return of fees previously paid.