Kathryn M. Frelick

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a July 2, 2024 decision of Justice Black.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the single issue of whether the Anton Piller order was correctly enlarged to include the business and phone computer of one of the moving parties.

Leave to appeal on all other issues was dismissed.

The court also granted a stay of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the underlying order pending the appeal, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a class action regarding alleged systemic abuse at a psychiatric facility from Toronto to Barrie.

The court applied a holistic approach to the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While Barrie had proximity to the facility and witnesses, the Regional Senior Justice noted that due to courtroom availability and backlog, a trial in Barrie might ultimately be moved elsewhere in the Central East Region.

The court concluded that Toronto's judicial resources and specialized class action judges would better ensure a just and expeditious determination.

The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The appellant, a deaf individual with limited communication skills, was involuntarily committed under the Mental Health Act and detained in a maximum security psychiatric facility for 19 years.

He challenged the constitutionality of the involuntary committal provisions under s. 7 of the Charter and alleged a violation of his s. 15(1) equality rights due to inadequate sign language interpretation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Mental Health Act violates s. 7 when applied to long-term detainees because the Consent and Capacity Board lacks the authority to ensure that liberty is restricted no more than necessary.

The Court also found a violation of s. 15(1) due to the systemic failure to provide adequate interpretation services.

The Court severed the words 'or subsequent' from s. 20(4)(b)(iii) of the Act, suspending the declaration of invalidity for 12 months, and granted a declaration of the appellant's equality rights.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Mental Health Legal Committee brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an upcoming appeal concerning the constitutionality of the involuntary detention provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The appellant supported the motions, while the respondent Crown and mental health facility opposed them, arguing the proposed interventions would be duplicative or raise new issues.

The Court of Appeal granted both motions, finding that the proposed interveners had special expertise, would make useful contributions without duplicating the appellant's arguments, and that the new legal arguments raised did not require fresh evidence or cause prejudice to the respondents.

Medical negligence appeal arising from a catastrophic birth injury after an emergency Caesarean section.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings on negligence and causation, numerous evidentiary rulings concerning expert reports, foundational facts, discovery corrections, and cross-examination, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based largely on the trial judge's handling of extreme incivility by defence counsel during a 165-day trial.

The Court of Appeal held there was ample evidence supporting the findings that no negligence was proven and that the injury was caused by a sudden placental abruption.

It further held that virtually all evidentiary rulings were correct, any errors were inconsequential, and an informed observer would not apprehend bias.

The appeal was dismissed, but the trial judgment was varied so the dismissal was without costs.

In a medical negligence appeal arising from catastrophic birth injuries, the appellants challenged the trial judge's equal apportionment of fault among two settling physicians and a hospital that was both directly negligent and vicariously liable for a nurse's negligence.

The court held that s. 4 of the Negligence Act was misapplied because it was practicable to distinguish relative fault, and a vicariously liable defendant's share may reflect the individual contribution of the employee whose negligence caused the loss without requiring that employee to be added as a defendant.

The court further stated that s. 1 does not authorize attribution of fault to non-parties, although that issue did not need to be decided to dispose of the appeal.

The trial judge's refusal to reduce the rule 53.09(1) discount rate for future wage loss was upheld.

Costs were varied to reflect the revised 50 per cent apportionment against the hospital.