John-Otto Kingman Phillips

The plaintiff, David Trueman, in a proposed class action, sought leave to amend the Fourth Amended Statement of Claim to add a new sub-class and particularize existing claims.

The proposed amendments related to allegations that Rogers Communications and Rogers Bank obtained private credit information through unauthorized soft credit checks to pre-approve and issue unsolicited credit cards, in breach of privacy rights and contract.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments introduced a new, time-barred claim based on a breach of Bank Act regulations.

The court found that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather particularized existing claims for breach of contract and privacy, with the issuance of unsolicited credit cards being a consequence of the alleged wrongful conduct.

Therefore, no limitation period issue arose.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the statement of claim and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

This motion for directions in a settled class action concerned the interpretation of two ambiguous provisions within the settlement agreement related to claims administration.

The court was asked to clarify whether Article 4.3(5) provided a minimum or maximum period for claimants to correct deficiencies and whether Article 4.2(6) required a final assessment of all claims by 60 days post-deadline or merely a status report.

The court adopted the interpretation proposed by Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator, confirming that the Claims Administrator has discretion to grant extensions beyond 30 days for correcting deficiencies and that the 60-day report is a status update, not a final assessment.

The motion was unopposed by the defendants.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellants (The Attorney General of Canada and two officers) were successful on appeal and were awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal set aside the trial costs order and awarded the appellants costs at trial on a partial indemnity basis, in addition to costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion, with the defendants' consent, to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes, approve a settlement agreement, approve the plan for disseminating notices, approve the forms of the notices, and grant a privacy and disclosure order.

The class action concerned defective implantable cardioverter or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators manufactured by the defendants, which were prone to premature battery depletion.

The court found that all criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied, noting that these criteria may be applied less rigorously in a settlement context.

The motion was granted, approving the certification for settlement, the settlement agreement, and related procedural orders.

An appeal from a trial judgment that recognized a new common law tort of harassment and found the defendants liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The plaintiff, an RCMP constable, alleged harassment and bullying by RCMP managers from 2005 to 2012.

The trial judge awarded $100,000 in general damages, $41,000 in special damages, and $825,000 in costs.

The appellate court reversed, holding that no tort of harassment exists in Ontario and that the elements of intentional infliction of mental suffering were not established.

The court found numerous palpable and overriding factual errors in the trial judge's findings, particularly regarding the plaintiff's failure to comply with regulations requiring leave without pay before running for political nomination and the bona fides of management's concerns about conflicts of interest.