Jody Nicholas Brown

The plaintiff in a proposed class action moved for leave to amend the Statement of Claim to add the corporate directors of the defendant companies as new defendants.

The amendment was sought due to concerns about the existing defendants' ability to pay outstanding wages, particularly in light of the global travel industry's collapse due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no prejudice to any party, as the defendants did not object and the action was still at an early stage.

Leave to amend was granted, with no costs awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a $19,000,000 settlement in a class action regarding unpaid overtime, as well as a distribution protocol and class counsel fees of 33%.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist in assessing the reasonableness of the settlement and fees.

Finding the settlement to be a rational compromise based on expert analysis of electronic timekeeping data, and the contingency fee to be consistent with similar class proceedings, the court approved the settlement, distribution protocol, and class counsel fees.

This motion concerned the certification of a proposed class action against the provincial government regarding the negligent operation and administration of social assistance programs for developmentally disabled adults.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, primarily due to indeterminate waitlists and flawed prioritization for approved services.

The court certified the class action, allowing the negligence and Charter claims to proceed, but struck the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

Common issues related to duty of care, Charter rights, and the availability of punitive damages were certified, while aggregate damages and the amount of punitive damages were not.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to certify a class action against the Hospital for Sick Children and others regarding the systemic negligence of the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory.

The motions judge had found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because resolving the common issues of systemic negligence would not significantly advance the individual class members' claims, which required highly individualized proof of causation and damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's discretionary balancing of the preferable procedure factors.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff and her expert witness to produce extensive financial and medical records, and additional expert materials, during cross-examinations for a class action certification motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the requested information irrelevant and disproportionate to the certification issues under the Class Proceedings Act.

The court emphasized that a representative plaintiff's personal financial or medical circumstances are not generally relevant to certification, nor are an expert's draft notes or unrelated academic works that were not relied upon in their report.

The plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class action arising from allegedly unreliable Motherisk hair-strand drug and alcohol testing used in child protection, family, and criminal proceedings.

The court held that while the pleading disclosed a cause of action and there was evidence of a broad group of potentially affected persons, the proposed proceeding failed on common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria.

The court found the alleged systemic negligence did not materially advance the class members' real claims because compensable harm depended on highly individualized proof that a particular test result was false and adversely influenced a particular proceeding.

The litigation plan for individual hearings was found unworkable and procedurally unfair.

Certification was refused.

The court issued an addendum to its previous reasons regarding the allocation of $7.45 million in cy-près settlement funds from three class actions.

The court had mistakenly allocated $772,973.13 to a CAMH proposal, believing it was supported by the representative plaintiffs.

Upon being informed that the representative plaintiffs vigorously opposed the CAMH proposal because it did not align with the settlement's goal of enhancing the ability of individuals with developmental disabilities to guide decisions affecting them, the court rescinded the allocation.

The funds were instead redirected to People First of Ontario.

The court considered the allocation of approximately $7.45 million in Strategic Program Investment funds, representing unclaimed settlement funds from three class actions concerning institutional abuse at Huronia, Rideau, and Southwestern Regional Centres.

The Plaintiffs sought approval for allocations to 37 applicants, while the Crown disputed parts of the proposal, advocating for increased funding for People First of Ontario or the McMaster University project, and raising concerns about accountability, potential bias, direct individual benefits, and artistic projects.

The court approved the Plaintiffs' allocation with adjustments, disapproving certain applications that provided direct individual benefits or were deemed disproportionate artistic projects, redirecting those funds to People First of Ontario and the McMaster University project, and establishing an accountability mechanism through the Administrator.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the provincial Crown regarding alleged institutional abuse at the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute (CPRI) between 1963 and 2011.

The defendant consented to the certification.

The court reviewed the requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act and found them satisfied, noting the commonality of issues and the vulnerability of the proposed class.

The action was certified on consent.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding brought by sales agents claiming to be employees under the Employment Standards Act rather than independent contractors.

The defendants argued the motions judge erred in finding employee status to be a common issue and in failing to limit the class definition based on the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of approximately 7,000 door-to-door sales agents who were hired by the defendants as independent contractors.

The plaintiff alleged that the sales agents were misclassified and were actually employees entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, noting sufficient evidence of systemic commonality regarding the defendants' control over the sales agents.

The motion for certification was granted.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of a class action settlement, legal fees for class counsel, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff in a misclassification overtime class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. The defendant agreed to pay $12 million for class member compensation and $500,000 for administration costs.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within a zone of reasonableness established by comparable U.S. settlements.

A 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

In a class action arising from a train derailment where the defendants admitted liability, the parties could not agree on a litigation plan for the individual issues phase to determine damages.

The plaintiffs proposed a plan involving a test case for mental distress damages, while the defendants proposed a more cumbersome procedure with extensive discovery rights.

The court rejected both plans as inadequate and contrary to the goals of access to justice and judicial economy.

The court proposed a three-tier procedure based on the quantum of damages claimed and directed the parties to negotiate a plan based on this proposal.

In a class action arising from a train derailment where the defendants admitted liability, the parties could not agree on a litigation plan for the individual issues phase to determine damages.

The plaintiffs proposed a plan involving a test case for mental distress damages, while the defendants proposed a more cumbersome procedure.

The court rejected both plans as inadequate for achieving access to justice and judicial economy.

The court proposed an alternative three-tiered claims procedure based on the amount claimed and directed the parties to negotiate a final plan based on this proposal.

This was a costs decision arising from an individual issues motion in a class proceeding after judgment on common issues had been granted.

The representative plaintiffs sought recovery of counsel fees and substantial disbursements incurred through the common issues phase, including occupational therapy and psychological assessment reports for class members.

The court held that Rule 49 offers were not to affect costs at this stage, excluded certain unrecoverable disbursements, and treated only part of the medical assessment expenses as attributable to successfully advancing the action to the individual issues phase.

Costs of $214,624.41 all-inclusive were awarded, with the balance of certain disbursements reserved for the individual issues phase.

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Two related class actions arising from a tuberculosis exposure incident at a hospital sought court approval of a negotiated settlement and class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The litigation followed exposure notices issued to thousands of individuals after two patients were diagnosed with tuberculosis, leading to claims of negligent failure to diagnose and prevent transmission.

After extensive discovery, expert evidence, and partial summary judgment dismissing claims of uninfected class members, the remaining infected class claims were scheduled for a common issues trial.

The parties reached a $1.7 million settlement establishing a compensation scheme based on varying likelihoods of causation.

The court held the settlement fell within a reasonable range and was in the best interests of the class, and it also approved a 30% contingency fee and honorariums for the representative plaintiffs.

Following certification of a class proceeding alleging unpaid overtime by investment advisors, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought $575,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendant argued the award should not exceed $315,000.

The court outlined a structured methodology for certification-motion costs awards emphasizing transparency, historical averages, proportionality, and the Rule 57.01(1) factors.

After reducing the claim for excess fees and disbursements and considering historical cost award data and comparable cases, the court fixed costs at $290,000 all-inclusive payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against the defendant for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendant argued that investment advisors were exempt from overtime provisions due to their managerial character or because their compensation provided a greater benefit.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against his former employer for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued that investment advisors fall within the managerial or greater benefit exemptions.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.