Kirk Michael Marius Baert

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a certified class action alleging abuse at a residential school, appealed a motion judge's order granting the respondents leave to issue third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against the students' parents and guardians.

The appellants argued that the third-party claims were legally untenable because they had limited their claims to the several liability of the respondents.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Taylor v. Canada, holding that where a plaintiff limits their negligence claim to damages caused solely by the defendant, there is no right to claim contribution and indemnity.

Furthermore, liability for breach of fiduciary duty is not subject to apportionment.

The order permitting the third-party claims was set aside.

Three competing groups of plaintiffs and their respective counsel brought carriage motions seeking to represent a class of investors who suffered losses following a massive decline in the value of Sino-Forest Corporation's securities.

The court evaluated the competing actions based on factors including the definition of class membership, class period, theory of the case, causes of action, joinder of defendants, and prospects of certification.

The court stayed the Smith and Northwest actions and granted carriage to the Labourers action, finding its approach to the class definition, causes of action, and joinder of defendants to be the most cohesive and in the best interests of the class.

In an environmental class action concerning historic nickel emissions from a refinery, the appellant challenged findings of nuisance, strict liability, and aggregate damages for alleged property value stigma following public concern about soil nickel levels.

The Court of Appeal held that a mere chemical alteration of soil, without detrimental effect on the land or its use, does not constitute actual, substantial, physical damage for private nuisance.

The court also held that Ontario law does not recognize strict liability based solely on allegedly extra-hazardous activity, and that the refinery operation was not a non-natural use within the Rylands v. Fletcher framework.

The claimants further failed to prove any compensable diminution in property values on a proper analysis of the valuation evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The representative plaintiffs in a class action against a private school sought leave to appeal a motions judge's decision permitting the defendants to bring third party claims against the parents of the students, who were members of the certified class.

The plaintiffs argued that because they intended to limit their claims to the several liability of the defendants, third party claims for contribution and indemnity were legally barred, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Taylor.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision and noting the issue's importance to access to justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal.

The court awarded the respondents costs in the total amount of $60,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, to be divided $35,000 to the respondent corporation and $25,000 to the individual respondents.

The parties in a class action alleging regulatory negligence against Health Canada jointly moved for leave to have a special case determined by the Court of Appeal in the first instance, bypassing the Divisional Court.

The issue was the requirement for pleading proximity in regulatory negligence, given conflicting appellate jurisprudence.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that despite the motion judge having already addressed the issue, the rules could be liberally construed to permit the special case to avoid enormous delay and expense.

The appellants were notified by public health authorities of potential exposure to tuberculosis at the respondent hospital.

Although none tested positive, they brought a class action claiming damages for psychological harm caused by the notification.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims because the appellants did not suffer a recognizable psychiatric illness.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the Supreme Court of Canada in Mustapha eliminated the recognizable psychiatric illness threshold.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Mustapha did not change the law and that a recognizable psychiatric illness remains the threshold for compensable psychological injury in negligence.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the respondent's class action claim, the appellants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, administering the class proceedings fund, argued against a costs award under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, claiming the case involved novel issues and public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the case merely applied existing Supreme Court precedent.

Costs were awarded to the appellants, fixed at $55,000 for the appeal and $125,000 for the action.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the administration fee charged by the defendant satellite television providers to delinquent subscribers constituted a criminal rate of interest under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.

The Court held that the administration fee was a legitimate estimate of collection costs and was not paid or payable for the advancing of credit, and therefore did not constitute interest under s. 347.

Appeal from Ontario pension litigation concerning whether an employer could charge plan administration expenses to a pension trust fund, take contribution holidays in a defined benefit component, and use actuarial surplus from that component to satisfy contribution obligations for a newly added defined contribution component.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied to the Financial Services Tribunal's determinations, upheld the finding that most plan expenses were payable from the fund, and confirmed that the defined benefit contribution holidays were permitted under the plan text.

The majority further held that it was reasonable for the Tribunal to permit defined contribution holidays once retroactive amendments designated defined contribution members as beneficiaries of the same trust.

The Tribunal lacked authority to order costs from the fund because the fund was not a party, and the courts properly declined to award the appellants' costs from the fund because the litigation was adversarial.

Following the dismissal of 42 consolidated motions for leave to appeal costs awards in 37 class actions, the respondent insurers sought costs totalling $345,349.36.

The Court of Appeal assessed the bills of costs submitted by various law firms representing the insurers.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than a strict mathematical calculation of hours times rates, the Court reduced the amounts claimed, noting that the complexity was procedural rather than legal or factual.

The Court fixed the total costs payable to the insurers at $141,645.26.

The appellants, who received long-term disability benefits, brought a proposed class action challenging the insurer's deduction of CPP Child Benefits from their payments.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the deductions were permitted by the policies and not contrary to the Canada Pension Plan, and awarded the insurer $215,000 in costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and the costs award, confirming that while the factors in s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act must be given significance, they do not automatically insulate an unsuccessful class plaintiff from an adverse costs award.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against Health Canada, alleging negligent regulation of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that it was plain and obvious that Health Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to individual consumers of medical devices.

The statutory scheme did not create a proximate relationship, and the pleadings failed to allege specific representations or reliance that would establish proximity under the Anns/Cooper test.

The appellants, who received silicone gel breast implants that allegedly leaked or ruptured, commenced a proposed class action against Health Canada for regulatory negligence.

They alleged that Health Canada breached a private law duty of care by failing to properly regulate, test, or warn consumers about the hazards of the implants under the Food and Drugs Act.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no cause of action because the legislative scheme did not impose a private law duty of care on the government.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the government's duty under the Act is owed to the public as a whole, not to individual consumers, and that no proximate relationship existed.

The appellants and the Law Foundation of Ontario sought leave to appeal costs orders made by the case management judge following the dismissal of several proposed class actions against automobile insurers.

The motion judge had awarded costs to the successful insurers, including substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs persisted with unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and deceit to overcome limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding entitlement or scale of costs.

The defendants, eight major financial institutions, successfully defended an appeal of a decision denying certification of a class action regarding mortgage contracts.

The defendants sought their costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting the proceeding was a test case and involved a matter of public interest under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding the case was not a test case, did not raise a novel point of law, and was not a matter of public interest, but rather involved individual commercial mortgage contracts.

The court awarded the defendants modified partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 per defendant.

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order that reopened a dismissed class action certification motion to allow the plaintiffs to file fresh expert evidence.

The motion judge had previously dismissed the certification motion because the plaintiffs' expert evidence was inadmissible.

The motion judge then allowed the motion to be reopened, finding that the strict test for fresh evidence from Sagaz did not apply to procedural motions under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and conflicting decisions regarding the application of the principle of finality to procedural orders.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions to certify eight separate class proceedings against various financial institutions.

The claims alleged that the respondents incorrectly interpreted mortgage provisions regarding partial prepayment rights and early discharge penalties.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action as they relied on implied terms not supported by the express language of the mortgages.

The court also agreed that the proposed classes were overly broad, individual issues overwhelmed any common issues, and a class proceeding would be unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.

The Attorney General for Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order certifying a class action against the Crown regarding allegedly defective medical implants.

The Crown argued that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for regulatory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions on the matter and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's application of the Anns test for duty of care.