Kate Crawford

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 defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

The plaintiffs commenced a medical negligence action alleging improper treatment at a hospital that preceded a stroke suffered by the main plaintiff.

The plaintiffs later sought court approval under Rule 7 to dismiss the action, including the claim of a minor plaintiff, asserting that they were unwilling to fund a necessary neurological expert opinion on causation.

The court scrutinized the request due to the involvement of a minor and the absence of sufficient evidence addressing the merits of the claim.

The judge emphasized that counsel undertaking professional negligence cases on a contingency fee basis must anticipate the risk of funding necessary expert evidence.

Although the court initially refused approval and sought further information, the prolonged inactivity and the plaintiff’s inability to fund expert evidence ultimately justified dismissal of the claim without costs.