Joseph D’Angelo

Following certification of a class proceeding arising from the collapse of a shopping mall, the court determined the appropriate allocation of costs for the certification motion.

Most defendants did not oppose certification and several entered into settlement agreements regarding costs.

The court distinguished between baseline costs that would have been incurred even if certification had proceeded on consent and additional costs caused by defendants who opposed certification.

The judge concluded that $140,000 represented additional costs attributable to opposition and allocated remaining unpaid costs primarily to the provincial government, whose extensive submissions challenged multiple certification criteria.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 against one defendant and $60,000 against the provincial government, with other amounts accounted for through settlements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action following the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof in Elliot Lake, which killed two people and injured dozens.

The proposed class included occupants, tenants, and employees of the mall.

The defendants included the mall owners, builders, engineers, and the Province of Ontario.

The Province opposed certification, arguing it owed no private law duty of care for negligent inspection.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for negligent inspection against the Province and that all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The defendant Ministry brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision upholding a Master's refusal to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay at a status hearing.

The delay was largely attributed to the plaintiff's former solicitors.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the reviewing judge's decision, which properly applied the test for delay and deferred to the Master's exercise of discretion.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, employees of eHealth Ontario, brought a motion to certify a class action against eHealth for breach of contract and against Ontario for inducing breach of contract, relating to the non-payment of performance awards and merit increases.

The plaintiffs also moved to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for the 2011/2012 performance awards.

The court granted the motion to amend and certified the action as a class proceeding against eHealth, finding that the breach of contract claims were not plainly and obviously doomed to fail.

However, the court refused to certify the claim against Ontario for inducing breach of contract, finding it legally untenable.

The defendant Ministry appealed a Master's decision at a status hearing allowing the plaintiff's action to proceed despite a five-year delay.

The Master found the delay was caused by the plaintiff's former counsel failing to act on instructions, and that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the Master made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in applying the Khan test for delay.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a proposed class action concerning alleged defects in digital cameras, the court addressed the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought $764,944.37 on a partial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiffs were wholly unsuccessful and had advanced an overbroad claim lacking evidentiary foundation.

The court held that the case did not raise a novel legal issue or matter of public interest that would justify relaxing the ordinary costs regime under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court found the amount claimed excessive given the scale and complexity of the certification motion and the resources deployed by the defendants.

Balancing proportionality, fairness, and access to justice considerations, the court awarded the defendants $200,000 in costs.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a wrongful dismissal action and argued that prior findings in a defamation proceeding barred the plaintiffs from introducing additional affidavit evidence under the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The defendant asserted that the earlier decision had already determined that surveillance cameras were installed to intercept private communications, constituting a criminal act justifying termination under the management consulting agreement.

The court held that the earlier decision only determined that private communications had been intercepted under the Criminal Code and did not determine whether the conduct constituted a criminal act of dishonesty resulting in personal gain as required under the contract.

Because the issues in the contractual termination clause had not been fully adjudicated, the prerequisites for issue estoppel were not met.

The court exercised its discretion to permit the plaintiffs to rely on the proposed affidavits in defending the summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action.

The action arose from a statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal suit alleging the appellant installed undisclosed surveillance cameras in employee living accommodations.

The motion judge found the respondents established the substantial truth of the allegations, noting the appellant failed to file responding affidavit material as required by Rule 20.02(2).

The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence supported the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that a lease agreement for a municipal solid waste demonstration plant expired on January 28, 2003, and ordering the third party to indemnify the respondent municipality.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the automatic three-year extension was triggered when the facility first accepted waste, not when it was fully completed.

The Court also upheld the finding that the third party was bound by an indemnity undertaking contained in its proposal, which was incorporated into the agreement between its wholly-owned subsidiary and the municipality.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order setting aside a default judgment against four defendants.

The plaintiff argued there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, alleging the motions judge failed to find an arguable defence, ignored false affidavits, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motions judge applied the correct legal principles and provided sufficient reasons for the limited purpose of setting aside a default judgment.

The court also held the issues were specific to the parties and not of general importance to warrant leave to appeal.

The motion was dismissed without costs due to the defendants' lack of diligence.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that established the value of the respondent's minority shareholding and calculated amounts of excessive compensation and unjustified corporate expenses taken by the appellant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing a late amendment to the pleadings regarding share ownership and by improperly weighing the expert valuation evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly refused the late amendment as the appellant had previously abandoned the issue, and the respondent remained the registered shareholder entitled to relief.

The Court also held that the trial judge's assessment of the expert evidence was supported by the record and entitled to deference.