Jodi Gallagher Healy

Following dismissal of a motion brought in a certified class proceeding seeking disclosure about how insurance proceeds were expended, the successful defendants sought costs.

The representative plaintiffs argued success on the motion was divided because certain insurance information had been disclosed before the motion.

The court rejected this characterization and held the defendants were the successful party.

However, exercising discretion under the costs principles governing interlocutory motions, the court found the amount claimed exceeded what the unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay.

Partial indemnity costs were reduced and fixed at $4,500 inclusive.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a mass termination of employees, the representative plaintiffs brought a motion seeking further disclosure regarding the defendants’ insurance coverage, including details about the depletion of policy proceeds.

The defendants had already produced the policy and disclosed the remaining available coverage.

The court held that the discovery rules concerning insurance disclosure do not require detailed accounting of how insurance proceeds were spent, absent relevance to the issues in the litigation.

Additional disclosure could create unnecessary conflict between insured defendants and their insurer and was not necessary for the plaintiffs to decide whether to pursue or settle the litigation.

The motion for further disclosure was therefore dismissed.

Following a successful certification motion in a proposed class proceeding brought by former employees against corporate and individual defendants, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded due to their partial success on a Rule 21 motion and their role in narrowing the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court held that while the plaintiffs achieved overall success on certification, their success was limited because several causes of action were dismissed and the scope of the claims was reduced.

Exercising its discretion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court reduced the requested partial indemnity costs and awarded a global amount.

Costs of $50,000 inclusive were ordered payable forthwith to reflect the plaintiffs’ overall success.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of 521 dismissed employees of an insolvent call centre.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike several claims, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to pending Employment Standards Act proceedings and that the pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The court struck the breach of fiduciary duty claims but allowed the negligence, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and oppression remedy claims to proceed.

The court held that while s. 97 of the Employment Standards Act precluded some employees from advancing wrongful dismissal claims, it did not bar them from participating in the class action for the other tort and statutory claims.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.