Katherine Booth

A not-for-profit disability rights organization sought public interest standing to challenge the constitutionality of British Columbia's mental health legislation permitting forced psychiatric treatment without patient consent.

After individual co-plaintiffs withdrew, the chambers judge dismissed the claim for lack of standing; the Court of Appeal remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that legality and access to justice do not merit particular weight in the Downtown Eastside framework and that a directly affected individual co-plaintiff is not required for a public interest litigant to establish a sufficient factual setting.

Applying the three Downtown Eastside factors cumulatively, the Court granted the organization public interest standing and awarded special costs on a full indemnity basis throughout.

The appellant, Stericycle ULC, appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that it, rather than Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Limited, was the primary supplier for Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under a public tendering process.

Stericycle argued that the application judge erred in contract interpretation, allowing impermissible bid repair, and failing to properly apply the duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the "Six Month Provision" or the contract start date.

The court also found no breach of the duty of good faith or honest performance by HealthPRO or PHSA, as their actions were consistent with the contract's purpose and Stericycle's reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for a class action settlement and allocation plan concerning a Hepatitis A contamination recall of frozen fruit.

The court approved the $3,000,000 settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, lack of significant objections, and risks of continued litigation.

The plan allocated funds across four categories: purchasers, immunized members, bodily injury members, and family members/health insurers.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to conduct additional email searches related to the selection of engineers for a project, following an alleged breach of contract.

The plaintiff claimed he was not engaged for the project despite an exclusivity agreement.

The defendant argued that the selection was made by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and that extensive, targeted searches for the plaintiff's name had already been conducted without yielding relevant emails.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the requested searches to be of questionable relevance, speculative, and inconsistent with the principle of proportionality under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given the comprehensive searches already performed by the defendant and the production of definitive documents.

The defendant ABO Wireless Solutions Inc. brought a motion for leave to be represented by a non-lawyer, Khanh Kim Le Bui, who is its president, sole officer, director, and shareholder.

The defendant Bell Mobility Inc. opposed the motion, while the plaintiff took no position.

The court considered factors for granting leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including authorization, connection to the corporation, corporate structure, protection of stakeholders, representative's capability, and financial capacity.

The court found Ms. Bui reasonably capable and that granting leave was in the interests of justice, particularly for a closely held, non-operating corporation.

The motion was granted, with no costs awarded.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees following a data breach at Home Depot.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the low likelihood of success for class members.

However, the court denied honoraria for representative plaintiffs and significantly reduced the requested class counsel fees from $406,800 to $120,000, emphasizing that fees must be proportionate to the actual benefit received by the class members, which was valued at approximately $400,000.

Physicians applied under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act for an order declaring the respondents vexatious litigants following years of repetitive and abusive litigation arising from reports made to the Children’s Aid Society concerning a newborn’s health.

The respondents had commenced multiple lawsuits against doctors, a hospital, and others, repeatedly raising the same allegations despite several summary judgment dismissals and appellate rulings confirming the claims had no legal basis due to statutory reporting obligations and qualified privilege.

The court reviewed the history of motions, appeals, unpaid costs awards, and scandalous allegations against judges, counsel, and institutions.

Applying established criteria for vexatious litigation, the court found the respondents persistently instituted proceedings without reasonable grounds and abused court processes.

Orders were granted prohibiting them from commencing or continuing proceedings in any court without leave of the Superior Court, together with substantial indemnity costs.