Karine Bédard

A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.

The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.

This is a costs decision arising from a class action certification motion concerning the now-defunct "birth alerts" policy issued by Children's Aid Societies in Ontario.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the province of Ontario and 50 CAS defendants on behalf of mothers claiming compensation for discriminatory treatment.

The court certified the action against Ontario but denied certification against the CAS defendants due to structural defects in the pleading (the Ragoonanan problem).

The plaintiffs settled with Ontario for $300,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The CAS defendants sought $564,318.61 in costs.

The court reduced this amount to $335,000, applying a 40% discount under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act to reflect the public interest nature of the case and access to justice concerns.

The court dismissed IBM Canada Ltd.'s appeal from an endorsement refusing to strike certain paragraphs from Bruce Maule’s Fourth Amended Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found that the pleadings regarding systemic age discrimination and the employment circumstances of other IBM US employees were relevant, not overly broad, and not an abuse of process.

The court held that the pleadings were sufficiently particularized and provable, and that any concerns about discovery scope or prejudice could be managed at trial.

The decision affirms the importance of allowing claims of systemic discrimination to proceed where material facts are pleaded.

The court approved the settlement and class counsel fees in a series of related class actions brought by investors in syndicated mortgage loans against Fortress Real Capital Inc., Fortress Real Developments Inc., and others, including the Sorrenti Defendants.

The settlement, representing approximately 82% of the available insurance, was found to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court certified the actions as class proceedings for settlement purposes and approved the distribution plan and counsel fees.

This decision certifies a class action against the Province of Ontario regarding the issuance of "Birth Alerts" by Ontario children's aid societies (CASs), but declines to certify the action against the CASs themselves.

The court finds that the claims against the CASs suffer from the "Ragoonanan problem"—the lack of a representative plaintiff with a claim against each defendant—and that the CASs acted independently, not collectively.

The action against Ontario, however, is certified on the basis of negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as the Province had oversight authority and failed to act to stop the practice despite being able to do so.

The court sets out the certified class, common issues, and clarifies the preferable procedure for such claims.

The court approved a settlement agreement in a class action concerning losses suffered by investors in a syndicated mortgage loan promoted by Fortress Real Developments Inc. and Fortress Real Capital Inc. The settlement, reached with FMP Mortgage Investments Inc. and related defendants, provides for a $3,000,000 payment to class members, representing a substantial portion of the available insurance.

The court also certified the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of the settlement, approved class counsel fees, and made ancillary orders to facilitate the administration of the settlement and protect the parties involved.

This decision, Part 9 of a series in a multi-jurisdictional class action, addresses bitterly contested motions by both the Attorney General of Canada and Class Counsel to revise the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The dispute centered on the scope of reply position statements for Track 2 claims.

Canada sought to limit replies strictly to mitigating factors and causation rebuttal, while Class Counsel argued for broader replies to new issues raised by Canada.

The court denied both parties' specific requests, instead directing a revision to allow Canada a right of sur-reply if a claimant files a reply, and imposing an increased payment to the Manager/Expert in such instances.

The ruling aims to ensure fair, efficient, and proportionate litigation while discouraging procedural abuses by either party.

This is Part 10 of a series of joint decisions in multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec).

Class Counsel sought further revisions to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP), specifically to increase the $6,000 costs cap for Track 2 claims to $12,000, and to add a clause about Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applying to Track 2/3 claims, and to apply ordinary costs rules for contested Track 2 motions.

The court approved the latter two unopposed requests but denied the request to increase the costs cap, emphasizing proportionality and the need to simplify procedures rather than increase costs.

In a consolidated class action, Class Counsel sought partial indemnity costs for their work on a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the costs for DIIP development had been prepaid as part of prior counsel fee approvals.

The decision emphasized that DIIP creation is a necessary and collaborative aspect of class proceedings, not an event warranting additional 'success' costs, and clarified that prior judicial statements about future payments referred to costs already accounted for.

The applicant, a self-represented prisoner and class member in a class action regarding administrative segregation, brought a motion seeking to challenge and amend the court-approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant lacked standing to seek amendments as he had not opted out of the class action and was bound by the outcomes negotiated by representative plaintiffs.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant's recent placement in administrative segregation occurred after the class period had closed, placing it outside the scope of the class action, and that his criticisms of the protocol were based on a misunderstanding of its revisions.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to compel the class action administrator (Epiq) to disclose contact information of "Unlawfully at Large" (UAL) claimants to law enforcement.

The class members, through their counsel, opposed this, arguing it was an improper use of class action administration powers and a violation of Charter rights, suggesting that the Criminal Code's production order process was the appropriate mechanism.

The court, in a joint decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec, denied the Attorney General's broad request.

Instead, it granted a modified order, allowing disclosure only if the Attorney General first obtains a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, thereby upholding the proper legal process for obtaining such information while acknowledging the Attorney General's good faith in bringing the motion.

This is a costs endorsement following complex grouped appeals and a cross-appeal concerning claims by 28 former residents of the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre against His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and two physicians.

The Court of Appeal had largely upheld the trial judge's findings on liability for breach of fiduciary duty and battery, with minor reductions in damages.

The appellants sought a significant reduction in the respondents' costs for the appeal and a reduction in the trial costs.

The court awarded the respondents the full amount of their claimed appeal costs, finding that despite mixed success, the trial judgment remained largely intact and the costs claimed were reasonable given the complexity.

The court also declined to vary the trial costs, deeming the overturned $1,000 judgment a minor part of the overall proceedings.

Following a 71-day trial where the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $10 million in damages, the plaintiffs sought costs of approximately $8.5 million on a substantial indemnity basis or $5.3 million on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that substantial indemnity costs were unwarranted and that the partial indemnity claim included costs for interlocutory matters already decided.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the defendants to justify an elevated scale of costs.

Applying the partial indemnity scale and deducting amounts attributable to prior interlocutory motions, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $4,900,000 all-inclusive.