Jonathan Ptak

This decision addresses a scheduling dispute in a proposed class action concerning the Bell Canada Pension Plan.

The defendants sought to have their motion to stay the class action, arguing that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) was the preferable forum, heard before the certification motion.

The plaintiff opposed this, requesting both motions be heard concurrently.

The court, applying the Cannon factors and principles against litigation by installments, denied the defendants' request, directing that the stay motion be heard together with the certification motion, emphasizing that the preferability of jurisdiction is an issue best determined within the certification context.

The plaintiffs brought motions on consent to certify two class actions against Ontario and Canada arising out of staffing-related lockdowns at Ontario correctional institutions.

The plaintiffs alleged systemic negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there were adequate representative plaintiffs.

The motions for certification were granted.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a class action against the Crown for systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the failure to advance compensation claims for former Crown wards who suffered abuse or neglect.

The court granted the motion, certifying common issues related to duty of care, standard of care, breach, fiduciary duty, aggregate damages, and punitive damages.

The court found a class action to be the preferable procedure, promoting access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification, despite the Crown's arguments regarding over-broad class definition and alternative compensation avenues.

In a proposed class proceeding by former Crown wards alleging systemic failure by the Crown to facilitate compensation claims for abuse, the defendant moved to compel answers to refused cross-examination questions and to mark child welfare files as exhibits on the certification record.

The court held that questions about whether the proposed representative plaintiffs had made Criminal Injuries Compensation Board claims or civil claims, and the outcomes of any civil claims, were relevant to commonality, preferability, and representative plaintiff suitability, and ordered those questions answered in writing.

Questions about limitation periods and whether claims were still possible were held irrelevant to certification and potentially intrusive on privilege.

The request to mark the child welfare files as exhibits was dismissed as overbroad, prejudicial, and directed toward merits rather than certification issues.

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.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting certification of a class action regarding allegedly defective hip implants.

The defendants argued that the motion judge's approach to evidence on commonality conflicted with other decisions and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the 'some basis in fact' standard for certification.

Two competing plaintiffs, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien, brought a carriage motion to determine who would represent the class in a securities misrepresentation class action against Valeant Pharmaceuticals and others.

The proposed class actions alleged that Valeant misrepresented its financial results and business practices, causing billions in losses to investors.

The court analyzed 16 carriage factors, finding most to be neutral or non-determinative.

However, the court found that the interrelationship of class actions in multiple jurisdictions strongly favoured Kowalyshyn.

O'Brien's action was closely tied to a parallel action in Quebec, and the court viewed her Ontario action as a surrogate attempt to stay Kowalyshyn's action indirectly.

The court granted carriage to Kowalyshyn and temporarily stayed O'Brien's action.

Following the successful certification of a class action concerning metal-on-metal hip implants, the plaintiff sought costs of $584,288 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied its established approach to certification costs, reducing the hourly rates to comply with the Rules Committee Grid.

The court further reduced the fees by 50 percent because class counsel spent an inordinate amount of time unnecessarily litigating the merits of the action.

Disbursements were also reduced, as an expensive expert report was deemed not essential for certification.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $200,000 payable forthwith and $65,000 in the cause.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order in a securities misrepresentation class action.

The motion judge had ordered the defendant to pay 50% of the costs forthwith and 50% in the cause, while disallowing disbursements that had already been paid by settling defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the tests under Rule 62.02(4)(a) or (b).

The court emphasized the high degree of deference owed to discretionary costs orders, particularly those made by an experienced case management judge in a complex class proceeding.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging that large‑head metal‑on‑metal hip implants designed and distributed by the defendants were defective and caused injury.

The defendants contested certification primarily on the basis that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court applied the “some basis in fact” standard under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of product defect and class‑wide commonality to support most proposed common issues.

The court found that negligence, duty of care, breach of standard of care, medical monitoring costs, and punitive damages issues could proceed on a class‑wide basis, subject to certain amendments.

The action was certified as a class proceeding with most proposed common issues approved.

In a securities class action arising from the collapse of a forestry company, the plaintiffs sought approximately $2.6 million in costs following certification and leave motions brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act.

Several defendants argued that costs should not be awarded because the plaintiffs had already recovered legal expenses through settlements with other defendants and because the claimed costs were excessive.

The court held that the plaintiffs were largely successful but not entirely successful due to an unresolved assignment issue affecting certain class members.

The court also ruled that disbursements could not be recovered again because they had already been indemnified through settlements.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award: part payable immediately and part payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a proposed securities class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the company's ability to maintain its dividend, causing shareholders and debenture-holders to sustain losses when the dividend was cut.

The court dismissed the leave motion, finding no reasonable possibility that the secondary market misrepresentation claims would succeed at trial, as the defendants' statements were based on a genuine belief in their growth strategy at the time.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, holding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims, which require individualized proof of reliance.

In a proposed class proceeding on behalf of Crown wards allegedly physically or sexually abused before and/or during wardship, the court considered whether the pleading disclosed causes of action in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the provincial Crown.

Applying the plain and obvious test on a motion to strike, the court held it was arguable that the Crown, as statutory guardian, owed a private law duty of care analogous to that of a parent and that its obligations could extend to protecting the wards' legal rights, including advising them of claims, preserving evidence, and considering litigation.

The court also held it was not plain and obvious that no fiduciary duty could arise, given the statutory parental relationship and the vulnerability of Crown wards.

The plaintiffs satisfied the cause of action requirement under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and the defendant's motion to strike was dismissed.

This was a costs decision following a pre-certification production motion in a proposed class proceeding involving hip implant products.

The court had previously dismissed most of the defendants' production request as too broad, while requiring limited additional product identification information relevant to the certification criterion under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Treating the plaintiff as 90 percent successful on the motion, the court held that the plaintiff's $15,000 request was too high and the defendants' proposed $3,480 was too low.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 all-inclusive, payable forthwith by the defendants.

In a proposed class action concerning allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implants, the defendants brought a motion for the pre-certification production of the representative plaintiff's medical records.

The court formulated a clear rule for Ontario that pre-certification production of medical records will only be ordered if the defendant can show the documentation is relevant to one or more of the certification requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court dismissed the defendants' broad request for all hip-related medical records as irrelevant to the certification issues, but granted a narrow request for records identifying the specific products implanted, as this was relevant to the plaintiff's suitability as a representative plaintiff.

In this proposed securities class action arising from the collapse of a public issuer, the plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of claims on behalf of purchasers of notes and shares in the primary and secondary markets.

Subject to one contested issue concerning former noteholders who had assigned their notes during the class period, the motions were unopposed or proceeded on consent.

The court granted leave and certified the action, holding that the substantive dispute over whether assigned noteholder claims vested in transferees under New York law should be postponed until after certification.

The court found it procedurally preferable and fair to defer that merits issue until after a defence was delivered, thereby avoiding interlocutory delay in a large and complex class proceeding.

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.