Josh Nisker

This motion arose from one of six related actions following a fatal motorcoach bus collision on Highway 401 in June 2018, in which the deceased was a passenger.

The plaintiffs sought: an order to continue the action on behalf of a plaintiff who died after the action was commenced; approval of the settlement of the claims of a minor plaintiff (the deceased's granddaughter); approval of the minor plaintiff's contribution toward the solicitor-client account; and approval of the management of the net settlement funds payable to the minor plaintiff by her father, who resides in China, rather than through the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice.

The court granted all relief requested, finding that the settlement was reasonable and in the minor's best interests, that payment to the father was proportionate and practical given the parties' residence in China, and that counsel's dual role as affiant and lawyer of record was appropriate in the circumstances.

The main action and all crossclaims were dismissed without costs.

The court dispensed with the requirement for litigation guardians residing in China to file affidavits in support of court approval motions for settlements involving parties under disability, due to legal and logistical barriers under Chinese law.

The decision reviews the collaborative resolution of liability and settlement issues following a major motor coach accident, the apportionment of limited insurance funds, and the purpose of the court approval process under Ontario law.

The court found that requiring affidavits would be disproportionate and unnecessary, and that the interests of justice are served by waiving the requirement.

The defendants sought a reconsideration of a costs decision following a class action certification motion, arguing for no costs due to divided success because only one of the plaintiffs' two distinct cases was certified.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the joinder of claims was proper under the Rules of Civil Procedure and consistent with the principle of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The original costs award of $150,000 to the plaintiffs was confirmed.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The parties agreed that $150,000, all inclusive, was a fair and reasonable amount for the certification motion, which included $5,000 for a motion to strike an affidavit.

The defendants did not deliver any costs submissions opposing the request.

The court found the agreed amount to be fair and reasonable and awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a plastic surgeon and his clinic for breach of privacy.

The claims involved two main grievances: the surreptitious video surveillance of patients in the clinic (the Surveillance Complaint) and the posting of patient images on social media without valid consent (the Social Media Complaint).

The court certified the Surveillance Complaint, finding it met all criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court declined to certify the Social Media Complaint, concluding that the issue of valid consent was highly idiosyncratic and required individual inquiries, meaning it failed the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

The plaintiffs in a proposed privacy class action brought a preliminary motion to strike the complete clinical medical charts and medical records of the plaintiffs and two deponents, which were included in the responding affidavits of the defendant doctor.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images on social media without consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the detailed medical records were irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the certification motion, as the action concerned privacy breaches rather than medical malpractice.

In a proposed class action against a plastic surgeon for breach of privacy involving surreptitious video recording and unauthorized social media postings, the plaintiffs brought a preliminary motion for leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit regarding class size after cross-examinations had concluded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had provided their best information based on the plaintiffs' class definition, the supplementary evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, and allowing the affidavit would amount to prejudicial case-splitting.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike the expert report of Dr. Mary Anne Franks, proffered by the plaintiffs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images online without consent.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that Dr. Franks' evidence regarding the social and cultural context of non-consensual image distribution and American law was not relevant or helpful to determining the common issues for certification.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of certification.

The court granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, prejudicial, or detailed a College of Physicians and Surgeons investigation contrary to section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The plaintiff was injured in a multi-car collision.

The defendants admitted liability, and the case proceeded to a jury for damages.

This ruling addresses a threshold motion brought by the plaintiff to determine if her claim for general damages is barred by s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, which requires a "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function." The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright and found that the plaintiff's impairments to her ability to work and attend school were permanent, important, and serious, thus meeting the statutory threshold.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's personal injury claim was statute-barred due to the two-year limitation period.

The core issue was discoverability, specifically whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the permanent and serious nature of her injuries, particularly regarding an MRI report.

The court found it reasonable for the plaintiff to defer to her doctors regarding MRI results and that her claim was not statute-barred, dismissing the motion.