Jonathan Joseph Jennings Foreman

The plaintiffs in two proposed class actions regarding consumer loans for HVAC and home improvements brought a motion to stay hundreds of individual enforcement actions (Related Proceedings) commenced by the defendants against potential class members.

The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the motion and that the test under s. 13 of the Class Proceedings Act applied, rather than the RJR-MacDonald injunction test.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a substantial overlap of issues across all unidentified Related Proceedings, and that a blanket stay would cause significant injustice to the defendants' lending businesses.

The court ordered the defendants to disclose the existence of the proposed class actions to consumers involved in the Related Proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by the Attorney General of Canada from a certification order of a class action brought by immigration detainees.

Between May 2016 and July 2023, the Canada Border Services Agency placed approximately 8,360 immigration detainees in provincial and territorial prisons instead of Immigration Holding Centers.

The respondents challenged this practice as violating sections 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as constituting negligence.

The motion judge certified the class action, finding that the Charter and negligence claims disclosed reasonable causes of action and that common issues existed.

The appellate court upheld the certification, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's analysis.

Two proposed class actions were brought against consumer loan companies for allegedly engaging in unlawful business practices that misled consumers into signing loan agreements in breach of consumer protection legislation.

The plaintiffs sought interim motions for temporary stays of hundreds of related proceedings (primarily in Small Claims Court) pending final disposition of the class actions.

At a case conference, the court determined the sequencing of motions and set a litigation timetable.

The court ordered that the interim stay motions be heard before certification, finding that fairness and efficiency dictated this sequencing to prevent the defendants' enforcement actions from effectively mooting the class proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Canada on behalf of immigration detainees who were incarcerated in provincial prisons.

The plaintiffs alleged that the practice of detaining immigration detainees in provincial prisons, where they are subjected to penal conditions such as co-mingling with criminal inmates, strip searches, and the use of restraints, violates sections 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Charter and constitutes systemic negligence.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections, finding that the pleadings disclosed reasonable causes of action, the class was identifiable, the common issues could be determined in common, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiffs were adequate.

The motion for certification was granted.

This is a sentencing decision for Zlalame Alemu, who was found guilty of multiple offences including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, residential break and enter, mischief, and threatening a peace officer.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked attacks, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, including prior convictions for similar offences.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expression of remorse and his difficult life experiences, including systemic anti-Black racism and mental health issues, as detailed in a Pre-Sentence Report and an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The court applied principles from R. v. Morris regarding anti-Black racism and R. v. Hills regarding conditions of incarceration.

While acknowledging the impact of systemic racism, the court found it did not significantly reduce moral culpability for these specific violent offences given the accused's recidivism and lack of engagement with past rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 30 months, which, after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and substantial mitigation for incarceration conditions, resulted in one further day in custody, followed by a three-year probation order.

In this proposed class action, the plaintiffs sought leave to proceed under the Securities Act and certification as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, against Kew Media Group Inc. for statutory and common law misrepresentation.

The alleged misrepresentations concerned Kew's financial health and compliance.

Kew consented to the orders.

The court granted leave to proceed and certification, defining the class and common issues, and appointed plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought an application to stay proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to pre-trial delay.

The applicant argued that a new presumptive ceiling of 22 months should apply to cases proceeding to the Superior Court without a preliminary hearing following the enactment of Bill C-75.

The court rejected the proposed new ceiling, finding no evidence to justify altering the Jordan framework, especially given ongoing systemic delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay of 26.7 months fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling, and the application was dismissed.

The defendant, facing a sexual assault charge, brought an application to exclude evidence of the complainant's prior sexual disinterest in him.

The complainant had no memory of the sexual activity due to intoxication, and the Crown intended to adduce evidence that she was not sexually interested in the defendant in the hours leading up to her memory blackout as circumstantial evidence of non-consent.

The defence argued this evidence lacked probative value.

The court dismissed the application, ruling that evidence of sexual disinterest closely connected by time and circumstance to the alleged assault has probative value and is admissible to determine subjective consent, distinguishing it from more remote expressions of disinterest.

The defendant, Garrett Depippo, was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with an illegal blood alcohol content.

The court addressed whether the roadside breath demand satisfied the "immediacy" requirement and if the defendant had a realistic opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found the immediacy requirement was met and there was no realistic opportunity for counsel at roadside, dismissing the Charter application.

The court then found the defendant guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of evidence, including his own testimony and poor judgment.

Following a Supreme Court decision (R. v. Breault), the excess blood alcohol count was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Christian Bolemwa, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg%.

During the trial, a Charter application was brought alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to detain and arrest the accused, and that his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(a) were not violated.

Regarding section 10(b), the court determined that the accused's circumstances did not constitute "special circumstances" requiring enhanced police diligence, as he indicated understanding his rights and was provided French-speaking duty counsel.

The court found the accused guilty of both counts, concluding that his ability to operate a conveyance was impaired by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting mental health concerns as a plausible alternative explanation for his behavior.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to defer filing its statement of defence until after the certification motion in a proposed class proceeding regarding immigration detention.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the presumption that a defendant must file a statement of defence before certification unless special circumstances justify a deferral.

The court found that the legal issues were well-defined and the defendant's concerns about the complexity and resources required to prepare the defence conflated pleading preparation with discovery or trial preparation.

The defendant, Vinusan Arudselvam, was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand under s. 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code following a motor vehicle accident.

The defence argued that due to chest pain from the accident, he had a reasonable excuse for not providing a suitable sample and challenged the mens rea requirement for the offence.

The court ruled that the breath demand was lawful and that the mens rea for the offence is knowledge that a demand has been made, not specific intent to refuse.

However, the court found the defendant's testimony credible regarding his chest pain and accepted that his injury constituted a reasonable medical excuse, making compliance extremely difficult or painful.

The police investigation was deemed rushed and poorly conducted, particularly regarding the officer's failure to ascertain the defendant's language difficulties or medical distress.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

The accused, Khanij Chopra, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance"over 80" and possession of a controlled substance.

The defense filed a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude breath samples and the controlled substance.

The Crown sought to admit the accused's utterances.

The court found significant Charter breaches due to prolonged unlawful detention and denial of the right to counsel, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples and the controlled substance under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty of the "over 80" and possession charges.

For the impaired operation charge, the court found reasonable doubt regarding impairment at the time police located the accused, leading to an acquittal on that count as well.

The plaintiff sought an order to discontinue a putative class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations under the Securities Act.

Due to developments in jurisprudence regarding limitation periods and the inability to find a representative plaintiff for the remaining viable primary market claims, the plaintiff concluded the action was no longer viable.

The court granted leave to discontinue the action on a without-costs basis and approved the proposed notice plan.

Class counsel sought approval of fees representing 25 percent of a $770,000 partial settlement, as well as disbursements.

The court approved the disbursements but declined to approve the requested 25 percent fee at this stage.

The court found the hourly rates used by counsel to be grossly excessive, distorting the value of docketed time.

Noting that the litigation remained in its procedural infancy after six years, the court fixed the fee award at $100,000 plus HST, without prejudice to counsel's right to seek additional amounts upon further settlement or completion of the certification motion.

The plaintiff in a class action sought court approval for a partial settlement agreement with the Kamaya defendants, who were accused of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy for linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment and cooperation benefits for the plaintiff class.

The court, applying principles from the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and relevant case law, found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the monetary amount being at the lower end of the reasonable zone.

The decision emphasized the value of arm's-length negotiation, counsel's recommendation, and the strategic benefits of early cooperation from settling defendants in complex conspiracy litigation.

The plaintiffs in a class action against Kew Media Group Inc. and several individual defendants sought consent orders to streamline the litigation.

The corporate defendant was in insolvency proceedings with a stay in place.

The plaintiffs agreed to discontinue the action against five individual defendants, hold the case in abeyance against two others, and toll applicable limitation periods.

The court granted the consent orders for discontinuance, leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and certification under the Class Proceedings Act against the remaining individual defendants, finding the agreements made the case more efficient without adversely affecting class members.

The moving defendants sought a temporary stay of the plaintiff's certification motion pending the determination of a certification motion in a related price-fixing class action involving different electronic components.

The defendants argued that a stay would promote efficiency as the expert evidence and methodology were substantially similar in both actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the actions involved different products, time periods, and parties, and that an indefinite delay would be unfair to the plaintiff class and contrary to the goals of judicial economy and access to justice.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.

The plaintiff in a price-fixing class action sought approval of a settlement with the sole individual defendant.

The settlement provided no monetary compensation but required the defendant to provide extensive cooperation, including an evidentiary proffer, interviews, document exchange, and trial testimony.

The court approved the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, as the defendant's inside information offered significant strategic value against the remaining corporate defendants.