Jill Lawrie

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.

In a certified class action concerning contaminated heater-cooler systems used in open-heart surgery, the defendants brought a motion seeking directions to prohibit Class Counsel from providing medical advice or information to class members about the infection risk.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it is not the defendants' or the court's role to altruistically protect class members from their own lawyers' communications, nor should the court preemptively regulate medicolegal advice given by Class Counsel to gather evidence and prosecute the case.

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.

At a case conference for a certified class action claiming $1.5 billion for understated fuel consumption, both parties had brought summary judgment motions.

Given the complexity of the case, which involves nearly two dozen expert witnesses and significant technical data, the court endorsed the parties' proposal to proceed with a 4-week hybrid trial rather than a 'trial in a box' summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff moved to certify a medical device products liability action as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action concerns alleged bacterial contamination of the Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System used during open chest cardiac surgeries.

The defendants did not oppose certification, reserving their rights to settle the litigation plan.

The court found the five requirements for certification under section 5(1) were satisfied and granted the order.

A case conference was held in a class action proceeding to address procedural matters.

The court approved the agreed-upon Notice Plan for the Notice of Certification.

Additionally, the court set a timetable for the plaintiff's upcoming summary judgment motion, granting the defendants until June 15, 2020, to serve their responding materials due to the complexity of the damages calculation and multijurisdictional analysis required.

In a nationally certified class action alleging defective organic roofing shingles, the plaintiff moved to amend the certification order to add a subclass of homeowners who had previously settled warranty claims with the defendant manufacturer and signed release forms.

The plaintiff sought certification of common issues regarding the scope of the releases and whether they were unconscionable, along with summary judgment on those issues.

The court held that determining the scope of each release and whether it was unconscionable required highly individualized factual inquiries into negotiations, compensation, homeowner circumstances, and surrounding context.

Because these issues lacked sufficient commonality across the proposed subclass, they could not be certified as common issues under the Class Proceedings Act.

The proposed release subclass and related objector subclass were therefore refused certification.