4 total
Certification motion costs fixed at $175,000 and apportioned among defendant groups.
Following certification of a pension-related class proceeding, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $210,000 for the certification motion.
The defendants conceded entitlement to costs but argued the claimed amount was excessive and opposed joint and several liability.
Applying the principles governing certification motion costs, including those articulated in Pearson v. Inco Ltd., the court determined that the plaintiff’s claimed costs were somewhat excessive and unsupported in part.
The court fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs at $175,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
The defendants were not held jointly and severally liable; instead, four groups of defendants were ordered to each pay an equal share.
Class action certified against pension plan trustees and administrators for allegedly granting unaffordable early retirement benefits.
The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of members of the Eastern Canada Car Carriers Pension Plan against the plan's trustees, administrative agent, and actuaries.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently or in breach of trust granted early retirement benefits when the plan had ongoing solvency issues, leading to a reduction in benefits for plan members.
The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence and breach of trust, the class was identifiable, there were common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.
The motion for certification was granted.
Appeal dismissed; Region of Peel held solely liable for basement flooding caused by sanitary sewer failure.
The Regional Municipality of Peel appealed a trial judgment finding it solely responsible for flood damage to the plaintiffs' homes caused by sewer backups during heavy rainfalls in 1995 and 1996.
The Region argued that the City of Brampton's storm sewer system was deficient and contributed to the flooding.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the flooding was caused by a failure of the sanitary sewer system, which the Region took over responsibility for in 1974.
There was no evidence that Brampton's storm sewer system was negligently operated or caused the flooding.
Summary judgment set aside due to significant contested issues of fact regarding a separation agreement.
The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, finding that there were significant contested issues of fact regarding compliance with a Separation Agreement, waiver, and fundamental breach.
Costs were reserved to the trial judge.
