class action

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.

The appellants, defendants in a proposed class action arising from the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reversible error in his conclusions that there were grounds to believe the plaintiffs' claims for private and public nuisance had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to certify a class action against the municipality for property damage caused by pinhole leaks in copper plumbing, allegedly resulting from the addition of sodium hydroxide to the municipal water supply.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim but struck the nuisance claim, finding it barred by s. 449 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which precludes nuisance claims related to the escape of water from water works.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the nuisance claim was plainly and obviously barred by the ordinary meaning of the statute.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that a breach of contract claim should have been certified, as it was not argued before the motion judge.

The appellants, representing a class of Ontario Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees, appealed a summary judgment decision regarding their entitlement to Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that Shoppers breached the 2002 franchise agreement by retaining the allowances, which constituted 'revenue', but did not breach the 2010 agreement, which explicitly allowed Shoppers to retain such concessions.

The Court also upheld the application of a rolling limitation period and the refusal to award aggregate damages due to the idiosyncratic nature of the profit-sharing model.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantification of damages, finding that Shoppers breached its duty of good faith by arbitrarily allocating $129 million as out-of-province rebates to avoid sharing the funds with Ontario franchisees, bringing the total Professional Allowances received to $1.084 billion.

The moving parties, representing U.S. class action claimants, sought leave to appeal a supervising judge's order in a CCAA proceeding.

The supervising judge had dismissed their motion seeking to be treated as unaffected creditors or to have an expedited adjudication of their claims prior to a creditor vote.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and did not raise issues of significance to the insolvency practice.

The Court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a CCAA supervising judge's discretionary decisions balancing stakeholder interests.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against Ontario for the early cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Program.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the certification judge erred by engaging in a merits-based analysis of the breach of contract claim rather than applying the 'plain and obvious' test under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the negligence, breach of undertaking, and Charter s. 7 claims, finding that the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision immune from negligence liability and that the Charter claim failed to plead the requisite principles of fundamental justice.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision declaring that the limitation period for putative class members remained suspended under s. 28(1) of the Class Proceedings Act following the denial of class certification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 28(1) provides an exhaustive list of circumstances that resume a limitation period, and denial of certification is not among them.

Consequently, the limitation period remains suspended indefinitely following a denial of certification, a result the court noted must be addressed by the Legislature.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

The appellant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondents' factums, arguing they raised issues beyond the scope of the appeal.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to consolidate their Divisional Court appeal with the appellant's Court of Appeal appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to strike, finding the respondents were entitled to raise additional arguments to sustain the lower court's order.

The Court granted the motion to consolidate, noting overlapping issues regarding the discoverability rule under the Competition Act and overlapping evidence.

The appellant, representative plaintiff in a proposed class action by unit holders of a real estate investment trust, appealed a motion judge's decision striking a knowing assistance claim against the respondents.

The claim alleged the respondents assisted a trustee in a breach of trust by concealing a conflict of interest in a property transaction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred by failing to generously construe the pleadings and by concluding that the respondents' alleged suppression of information and active participation could not amount to knowing assistance.

The claim was found to be legally plausible.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a motion judge's decision that allowed an Ontario supervisory judge to sit outside the province with judges from British Columbia and Quebec to hear motions regarding a national class action settlement, without requiring a video link to an Ontario courtroom.

The Court of Appeal held that while superior courts have the inherent jurisdiction to conduct hearings outside their home province, the open court principle under section 135 of the Courts of Justice Act requires a video link to a reasonably accessible Ontario courtroom.

The appeal was allowed to amend the order to require a video link.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action for the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion after hospital staff improperly accessed patient records.

The defendants moved to strike the claim, arguing that the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) constitutes an exhaustive code that ousts the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that PHIPA does not create an exhaustive code.

The Act's language, its highly discretionary review procedure tailored for systemic issues, and its explicit contemplation of other proceedings indicate that the legislature did not intend to preclude common law claims for breach of privacy.

On cross-motions for summary judgment in a certified class proceeding, the court determined common issues concerning prepaid wireless top-up balances and the Gift Card Regulation.

Applying modern contractual interpretation principles, the court held the agreements required subscribers to top up within the active period, with unused balances expiring at the end of that period and being forfeitable on the following day.

The court also held that the Gift Card Regulation applies only to gift cards as commonly understood, namely cards acquired as gifts for third parties, and not to prepaid wireless top-ups generally purchased for personal use.

Even where a prepaid phone card was purchased as a gift, there was no breach because the PIN receipts themselves had no expiry date.

The common issues were answered in favour of the defendant and the action was, in essence, dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that dismissed her proposed class action claims for constructive and common law fraud against the respondent trustees.

The motion judge found the claims were released by a CCAA settlement and were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellant had all material facts necessary to discover her claim when the Monitor's 39th report was issued in February 2010.

Because she issued her notice of action more than two years later in August 2012, the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The appellant brought a class action in defamation on behalf of Montreal taxi drivers whose mother tongue is Arabic or Creole, following racist and offensive comments made by a radio host.

The trial judge allowed the action, but the Court of Appeal set it aside.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the comments were wrongful and racist, an ordinary person would not have believed they damaged the personal reputation of each individual driver in the large, heterogeneous group.

Therefore, the requirement of personal injury for a defamation claim was not met.

The appellant, a former member of the Canadian Forces, brought a class action against the Crown challenging the deduction of his disability pension from his long-term disability benefits.

The Crown argued the action should be stayed because the lawfulness of the deduction could only be challenged by judicial review.

Applying TeleZone, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action and declined to exercise its residual discretion to stay the proceedings, as the essential character of the claim was for alleged breaches of s. 15(1) of the Charter rather than a veiled application for judicial review.

The appellant operated a cement plant that caused excessive dust, noise, and odours for neighbouring residents.

The respondents brought a class action for damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under article 976 of the Civil Code of Québec, a no-fault liability regime exists for neighbourhood disturbances where the annoyances suffered are abnormal or excessive.

The Court found the appellant liable despite its compliance with environmental regulations and lack of wrongful conduct.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's use of average amounts to assess damages for the class members.

The appellant obtained student loans under the Quebec Act respecting financial assistance for students.

His loan certificate provided for an interest exemption period after completing his studies.

Subsequent legislative amendments reduced and then eliminated this exemption period.

The financial institution charged the appellant interest based on the new legislation.

The appellant brought a class action against the government.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant had a vested right to the interest exemption period specified in his contract, and the legislative amendments did not clearly indicate an intention to interfere with vested rights or apply retroactively to existing contracts.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant employer appealed the refusal to dismiss a proposed class action seeking recovery of employee benefits allegedly tied to employment insurance premium reductions after collective agreement language was removed.

The Court of Appeal held that the core dispute—whether the employer actually satisfied its undertaking to share the benefit of the premium reduction—was not a question reserved exclusively to the statutory Commission under the governing Act and regulations.

The court further held that an officer's ruling did not create issue estoppel because it was not a determination made within the decision-maker's statutory jurisdiction on the question sought to be litigated.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.