Kirsten Franz

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The applicants brought a motion to enforce an interim settlement agreement with the City of Toronto regarding physical distancing standards in the city's shelter system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The City had asserted compliance with the agreement on June 15, 2020, which would trigger the termination of the agreement.

The court found that the City breached the agreement by asserting compliance when it had not used its 'best efforts' to achieve the required physical distancing standards across all sites.

The court ordered the City to continue its pre-compliance reporting obligations until it fully met its obligations under the agreement.

The applicants brought a refusals motion to compel answers and document production from the City of Toronto and Ontario in a Charter application challenging shelter standards during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion sought to enforce an Interim Settlement Agreement regarding physical distancing and bed capacity in shelters.

The court granted the motion in part, finding many of the City's refusals improper regarding system-wide compliance data for the May 15-June 15, 2020 period, but upheld other refusals based on proportionality, particularly concerning the Central Intake service, daily capacity data, and information outside the specified period.

The City of Toronto brought a special case motion to determine the scope of contribution and indemnity claims between Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems Ltd. and Gonte Construction Limited following a bilateral settlement between Toronto Hydro and the City.

The court addressed three questions: (1) whether Toronto Hydro's third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against Gonte in tort was limited to Gonte's several share of liability under the Negligence Act; (2) whether Gonte could claim contribution and indemnity from the City if Toronto Hydro could claim the full amount against Gonte in tort (this question was agreed upon by the parties); and (3) whether Gonte could claim common law contribution and indemnity from the City if found liable in contract.

The court ruled that Toronto Hydro's tort claim against Gonte is limited to Gonte's several share of liability, but Gonte can pursue a common law claim for contribution and indemnity from the City if found liable in contract, given the developing nature of the law in mixed contract and tort cases.

The appellants, operators of hookah lounges in Toronto, challenged the validity of City of Toronto By-Law 1331-2015, which prohibits the use of hookah devices in licensed premises.

The application judge upheld the by-law as a valid exercise of municipal authority to protect public health and safety.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: (1) that the by-law's true purpose was to prohibit hookah lounges rather than protect health; (2) that the by-law impermissibly infringed property and civil rights; and (3) that the by-law conflicted with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the by-law's purpose was clearly the protection of public health and safety, that any economic impact was incidental rather than determinative of purpose, that the by-law was not confiscatory, and that it did not conflict with provincial occupational health and safety legislation.

The applicant school board appealed decisions of the City’s Chief Building Official concluding that a proposed refurbishment of school sports facilities with a private operator did not fall within a zoning by‑law exemption for land used only for teaching or instructional purposes.

The proposal would allow a private company to operate the facilities commercially for the majority of the time.

The court held that while incidental non‑school uses of school facilities may fall within the exemption, intensive commercial exploitation does not.

Given the scale and commercial nature of the proposed use, the project did not qualify for the exemption and required a zoning variance through the municipal planning process.