7 total
Motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dismissed without costs.
The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.
Six COVID-19 class actions against long-term care corporate groups certified for gross negligence; independent homes dismissed.
The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).
The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.
However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.
The court upheld certification of a negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care.
The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government for its response to COVID-19 in long-term care homes, asserting claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of Charter s. 7.
The motion judge certified the negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care (MLTC) but struck the other claims.
This appeal and cross-appeal challenged that decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appellants' appeal (seeking to certify the struck claims) and the respondent's cross-appeal (seeking to decertify the negligence claim against the MLTC), thereby upholding the motion judge's original certification decision.
Refusals motion dismissed; internal investigation report and due diligence opinions protected by privilege.
The plaintiff in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of a Special Committee report, three due diligence legal opinions, and answers to questions about missing marijuana inventory.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Special Committee report and the legal opinions were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and that the privilege had not been waived.
The court also held that the questions regarding the missing marijuana were irrelevant and disproportionate.
The court granted extended factums and a two-day oral hearing in a class action appeal.
This is an appeal management endorsement concerning an appeal and cross-appeal from a class action certification decision.
The underlying action alleges gross negligence by the Government of Ontario regarding COVID-19 deaths and illnesses in long-term care homes.
The Court of Appeal addressed requests for extended factum lengths and oral hearing time.
The judge granted leave for longer factums (50 pages for the main appeal, 30 for the cross-appeal) and scheduled a two-day oral hearing.
The endorsement also provided guidance on the effective use and timely delivery of Oral Hearing Compendiums.
Leave to appeal certification order granted.
The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 20, 2022, regarding a certification motion.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and noted that the parties could apply to the Court of Appeal to have this appeal heard together with the pending appeal of the dismissal of the balance of the certification motion.
No costs were awarded as costs outlines were not filed.
Class action certified against Ontario for gross negligence in its COVID-19 long-term care response.
The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care (LTC) homes.
The plaintiffs alleged gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.
The court certified the class action solely on the negligence/gross negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care, finding it arguable that the Long-Term Care Homes Act imposes a private law duty of care on the Minister to protect LTC residents.
The fiduciary duty and Charter claims were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The class was limited to LTC residents and their families, excluding visitors.