Jill Mettie 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.

The plaintiff, Dr. Darryl Gebien, sought court approval for a Third-Party Funding Agreement with Omni Bridgeway Ltd. for a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical companies regarding the opioid crisis.

Several defendants objected to specific provisions of the agreement, including those related to amendments, assignments, attornment, costs enforcement, termination procedures, accrued costs, and confidentiality.

The court found that while the agreement generally met the requirements for approval, several of the defendants' objections, particularly concerning comprehensive attornment by Omni Bridgeway Ltd. and the broad confidentiality provisions, were "genuinely meaningful" and required resolution.

The motion for approval was adjourned to allow the parties to address these issues, with the court emphasizing that it is not its role to draft the agreement.

This appeal concerned a certified class action against Ford Motor Company regarding allegedly false or misleading fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels and in marketing materials for 2013 and 2014 vehicles.

The class action alleged breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection legislation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the class action, finding that Ford complied with mandatory federal guidelines for fuel consumption testing (2-Cycle Test) and that the representations were not false or misleading.

The court also addressed the "credulous and inexperienced consumer" standard, noting its applicability varies by statute, and found no deceptive non-disclosure.

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.

This certified class action concerned allegations of misleading advertising by Ford regarding fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels for 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles, claiming breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection statutes.

Both parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no contravention of the Competition Act due to Ford's compliance with federal guidelines and a lack of evidentiary support for a misleading general impression.

While provincial consumer protection laws allow for non-disclosure claims, the court found no legal obligation for Ford to provide additional disclosures (a "Second Label") beyond the EnerGuide Label and the referenced Fuel Consumption Guide, as there was no evidence that car buyers were deceived.

The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the class action, was granted.

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.

The representative plaintiffs and class counsel sought approval of a $21 million settlement in two certified class actions concerning allegedly defective transvaginal mesh devices.

They also sought approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, a distribution protocol, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The court found the settlement, distribution plan, and fee requests to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The motion was granted, approving the settlement, the distribution protocol, class counsel fees of approximately $4.17 million, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Ford Motor Company and related entities, alleging false, misleading, or deceptive representations regarding the fuel consumption of 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles.

The claim, for $1.5 billion, was based on violations of the Competition Act and the Consumer Protection Act, asserting that Ford understated fuel consumption by using an outdated 2-Cycle Test instead of the more accurate 5-Cycle Test.

The court certified the action, finding that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The court approved a $7.5 million settlement in a national class action alleging defective organic roofing shingles manufactured and sold by the defendants.

The settlement provides compensation to class members based on a point system reflecting warranty benefits received and qualifying damage.

The court considered the likelihood of success, litigation duration, settlement terms, and objections, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite individual members' higher repair cost expectations.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved.

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.

In two proposed medical device products liability class proceedings concerning transvaginal mesh used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, the plaintiffs moved on consent for certification and approval of notice plans.

The court applied the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the pleadings disclosed negligence claims, the proposed classes were identifiable, and the common issues were framed narrowly enough around devices using the same mesh to treat the same condition.

Distinguishing an earlier unsuccessful mesh certification case, the court found some basis in fact for common design defect issues in each action when treated discretely.

The court also approved the certification notices, dissemination plans, and opt-out form.

Both certification motions were granted.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion seeking approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The underlying action alleged that a credit card issuer charged cash advance fees and interest that could produce an effective annual interest rate exceeding the criminal interest threshold under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

After nearly nine years of litigation and mediation, the parties agreed to an $8 million settlement fund, including cy près distribution to the Law Foundation’s Access to Justice Fund and account credits for qualifying cardholders with open accounts.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, approving the settlement and class counsel fees but declining to award an honorarium to the representative plaintiff.

A certified class proceeding alleged that a manufacturer negligently designed, tested, marketed, and monitored mechanical heart valves coated with a silver-based antimicrobial surface.

The plaintiffs argued that the coating impaired tissue healing and increased the risk of complications including paravalvular leak, thromboembolism, and death.

After an extensive common‑issues trial involving scientific, epidemiological, and regulatory evidence, the court found the manufacturer exercised reasonable care in product design, testing, and post‑market surveillance.

The court concluded that the coating did not adversely affect tissue healing and did not materially increase the risk of most alleged complications, except for a temporary increase in paravalvular leak risk in the early post‑implant period.

Because negligence and causation were not established, the class action was dismissed.

The appellant brought a proposed class proceeding alleging the respondent bank received interest on cash advances in violation of the criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge refused to certify the action, finding that restitution and breach of contract claims lacked common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court affirmed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the class proceeding, holding that sections 23 and 24 of the Class Proceedings Act could be used to assess and distribute aggregate damages, thereby resolving the common issues problem.

The Court also found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to achieve judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

Appeals and cross-appeals arising from the collapses of two airlines operating leased aircraft and leaving substantial unpaid airport and civil air navigation charges.

The Court held that legal titleholders were not personally liable for unpaid navigation charges under s. 55 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act because 'owner' was limited to persons with legal custody, control, or possession in the statutory context.

However, the seizure and detention remedies under s. 56 of that Act and s. 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act operated against aircraft owned or operated by the defaulting airlines and could not be defeated by leasing arrangements or by separating attached engines.

The remedies extended to security posted in substitution for the aircraft, subject to the motions judges’ supervisory discretion to craft fair terms.

Interest continued to run until payment, posting of security, or bankruptcy.

The appellants appealed a costs award of $610,700.85 granted to the respondents following a successful class action certification motion.

The appellants argued the award was excessive, failed to reflect reasonable expectations, and was inconsistent with prior certification motion costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised his discretion, applied the overriding principle of reasonableness, and appropriately reduced the respondents' claimed costs by 40 percent to account for duplication and overkill.

The court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a case-management judge in complex class proceedings.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a decision refusing certification of a proposed class proceeding, the respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, agreeing with the motions judge that the case involved a novel question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 347 of the Criminal Code and was a matter of public interest.

The court found that in these circumstances, the appellant should not be penalized with costs despite being unsuccessful.