Justice H.A. Rady

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of independent distributors who contracted with the defendants to deliver fresh bread products.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached their contracts and the Arthur Wishart Act by participating in and concealing an illegal price-fixing conspiracy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common issues, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The accused, having been convicted of sexual offences and making child pornography, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the conclusion of evidence was approximately 59 months.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including time taken to schedule a preliminary hearing and trial due to defence counsel's unavailability, as well as discrete exceptional delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Crown illness.

Although the net delay of 31.4 months slightly exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling, the court dismissed the application, finding that the defence had explicitly waived delay and demonstrated a marked indifference to delay throughout the proceedings.

The accused, charged with dangerous driving causing death after his commercial truck collided with a car, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings.

He alleged the Crown breached his section 7 rights by releasing the truck to its owner, thereby losing or destroying material evidence regarding the truck's weight and braking capacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was lost or destroyed, noting the defence had multiple opportunities to inspect the vehicle and had in fact obtained an expert report.

The moving party mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child to another city for employment reasons.

The responding party father opposed the move and sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that it was premature to permit relocation on an interim basis given the conflicting evidence and the significant disruption it would cause to the child's status quo and the father's parenting time.

The court dismissed the relocation motion, adjourning the issue to trial, and ordered a shared-care parenting schedule on a four-day rotation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed shareholder class action arising from the successful joint take-over bid for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.

The plaintiffs asserted claims for circular misrepresentation, insider trading, oppression, and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the plaintiffs met the requirements for certification under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court excluded compulsory acquisition security holders from the class definition but included secondary market sellers.

The court also held that the oppression claims raised common issues and that a class action was the preferable procedure.