Kirk Michael Marius Baert

The parties made written submissions on costs following an appeal decision that yielded divided success.

The Court of Appeal held that neither party should pay costs to the other under the usual loser-pays rule.

However, because both parties acted to protect or advance the interests of the pension plan fund on their respective successful issues, the court awarded each party $15,000 in costs per court level, payable from the fund.

The appellant brought a proposed class proceeding alleging the respondent bank received interest on cash advances in violation of the criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge refused to certify the action, finding that restitution and breach of contract claims lacked common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court affirmed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the class proceeding, holding that sections 23 and 24 of the Class Proceedings Act could be used to assess and distribute aggregate damages, thereby resolving the common issues problem.

The Court also found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to achieve judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The appellants, former employees receiving pensions under the Bank of Canada Pension Plan, brought a proposed class action alleging the Bank improperly extracted funds from the Plan to cover administration costs.

The Bank successfully moved under Rule 21 to strike the claim for direct distribution of the extracted funds to class members and obtained a declaration that the action could not proceed under the Class Proceedings Act due to s. 37(a).

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the direct distribution claim, finding that restitution to the Plan was the appropriate equitable remedy.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that s. 37(a) does not preclude the action from being brought as a class proceeding simply because it could be brought as a representative proceeding under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants, Deloitte & Touche LLP and two of its partners, appealed an order enforcing letters rogatory issued by a U.S. court in a securities fraud class action against Nortel Networks Corp. The letters rogatory sought the production of extensive audit working papers and the testimony of the two partners.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the evidence was relevant, crucial, otherwise unavailable, and that its production would not be unduly burdensome or infringe Canadian sovereignty.

Following the plaintiff's successful appeal to certify an environmental claim as a class proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs awards for the certification motion, the Divisional Court appeal, and the Court of Appeal.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs for all stages, imputing success at the certification motion stage despite the plaintiff having substantially narrowed the claim on appeal.

Recognizing the public interest nature of the environmental class action under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, the court awarded the plaintiff $90,000 for the motion, $65,000 for the Divisional Court appeal, and $50,000 for the Court of Appeal.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against the respondent for environmental contamination caused by a nickel refinery in Port Colborne.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion.

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

The Court found that the appellant's narrowed claim for property devaluation met all certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a decision refusing certification of a proposed class proceeding, the respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, agreeing with the motions judge that the case involved a novel question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 347 of the Criminal Code and was a matter of public interest.

The court found that in these circumstances, the appellant should not be penalized with costs despite being unsuccessful.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, alleging that nickel oxide emissions caused a decline in property values following a 2000 Ministry of the Environment announcement.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused certification, finding the class arbitrary and individual issues overwhelming.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the action, holding that the narrowed claim focusing solely on property devaluation met all certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and suitable representative plaintiff.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent bank.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent received interest on cash advances at a criminal rate, in violation of s. 347(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and sought restitutionary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the restitutionary claims did not raise common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The appellants, automobile insurers, appealed the dismissal of their motions to dismiss class proceedings brought by the respondent insureds.

The insureds claimed that the insurers breached statutory condition 6(7) by reducing their actual cash value payments by the policy deductible when taking title to the salvage in total loss claims.

The motion judge, bound by the Court of Appeal's previous decision in McNaughton, dismissed the insurers' motions.

A five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal held that McNaughton was wrongly decided, as statutory condition 6(7) does not quantify the insurer's payment obligation but merely gives the option to acquire salvage.

The Court overruled McNaughton, allowed the appeals, and dismissed the insureds' actions.

Following a successful appeal that certified the action as a class proceeding, the Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement.

The appellants were awarded costs throughout on a partial indemnity scale.

The Court fixed the costs for the Divisional Court at $60,000 and for the Court of Appeal at $42,500, payable forthwith by the respondents jointly and severally.

The costs of the initial certification motion were referred back to the motion judge.

The appellants, members of various First Nations, sought to bring a class proceeding against the federal government and church entities for harms suffered at the Mohawk Institute Residential School between 1922 and 1969.

The motion judge and Divisional Court denied certification.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including identifiable classes, common issues such as systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and the preferability of a class action.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited and others for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, as well as the subsequent costs order.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed the claims to real property devaluation, abandoning health impairment claims.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the proposed class definition was arbitrary, individual issues would overwhelm common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court also upheld the costs award of $184,332.14 against the appellant, finding no error in the motion judge's application of costs principles under the Class Proceedings Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants sought to certify a class action against the federal government and others for alleged systemic physical, emotional, spiritual, and cultural abuse at a residential school operated between 1922 and 1969.

The motion judge dismissed the certification application, finding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the highly individualized nature of the claims and the necessity of separate inquiries for each student.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's conclusion that the resolution of common issues would not significantly advance the litigation and that individual actions were the preferable alternative.

The appellant sought to certify a class action on behalf of 30,000 residents complaining of noise and physical pollution from a landfill owned by the respondent city.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the appellant established an identifiable class and common issues, he failed to demonstrate that a class action was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims.

The Court found that the common issues were negligible compared to the individual issues, and that alternative avenues of redress, such as a Small Claims Trust Fund, were available.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was damaged beyond repair.

The respondent insurer paid the actual cash value less the policy deductible and took title to the salvage.

The appellant brought an intended class proceeding arguing that statutory condition 6(7) requires payment of the actual cash value without reduction for the deductible when the insurer takes salvage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 234(2) of the Insurance Act makes statutory conditions paramount over conflicting policy terms, including deductibles.

The court also found the appellant was not barred from claiming by signing a proof of loss, and remitted the class certification issue to the motions judge.

The appellants, representing a class of employees excluded from receiving 'gift shares' during a corporate restructuring, appealed the dismissal of their oppression remedy application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that the appellants lacked standing as they were not security holders, creditors, directors, or officers, and had no legal or equitable right to the shares.

The appeal was dismissed.