Kristin Jeffery

Following the successful certification of a class action concerning metal-on-metal hip implants, the plaintiff sought costs of $584,288 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied its established approach to certification costs, reducing the hourly rates to comply with the Rules Committee Grid.

The court further reduced the fees by 50 percent because class counsel spent an inordinate amount of time unnecessarily litigating the merits of the action.

Disbursements were also reduced, as an expensive expert report was deemed not essential for certification.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $200,000 payable forthwith and $65,000 in the cause.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging that large‑head metal‑on‑metal hip implants designed and distributed by the defendants were defective and caused injury.

The defendants contested certification primarily on the basis that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court applied the “some basis in fact” standard under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of product defect and class‑wide commonality to support most proposed common issues.

The court found that negligence, duty of care, breach of standard of care, medical monitoring costs, and punitive damages issues could proceed on a class‑wide basis, subject to certain amendments.

The action was certified as a class proceeding with most proposed common issues approved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy that artificially inflated prices for direct and indirect purchasers in Canada.

The court certified the action solely for the statutory cause of action under section 36 of the Competition Act.

The court excluded 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought from non-defendants) from the class, finding it plain and obvious they lacked a cause of action due to indeterminate liability and lack of restitutionary basis.

The court also declined to certify the common law claims for unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment, holding that they were precluded by the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Competition Act.

The remaining certification criteria were met for the statutory claim.

This was a costs decision following a pre-certification production motion in a proposed class proceeding involving hip implant products.

The court had previously dismissed most of the defendants' production request as too broad, while requiring limited additional product identification information relevant to the certification criterion under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Treating the plaintiff as 90 percent successful on the motion, the court held that the plaintiff's $15,000 request was too high and the defendants' proposed $3,480 was too low.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 all-inclusive, payable forthwith by the defendants.

In a proposed price-fixing class action involving lithium ion batteries, both sides brought refusals motions arising from cross-examinations conducted in advance of certification.

The court held that questions probing how class counsel came to act for the proposed representative plaintiffs, and requests for a retailer plaintiff’s business documents, were not relevant to the certification criteria.

However, questions to the plaintiffs’ expert about whether inclusion of contract phone purchasers complicated pass-through analysis were relevant to testing the expert’s methodology and had to be answered.

Questions to defence witnesses about alleged meetings and documents referenced in a related U.S. proceeding were refused as going to the merits rather than certification.

In a proposed class action concerning allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implants, the defendants brought a motion for the pre-certification production of the representative plaintiff's medical records.

The court formulated a clear rule for Ontario that pre-certification production of medical records will only be ordered if the defendant can show the documentation is relevant to one or more of the certification requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court dismissed the defendants' broad request for all hip-related medical records as irrelevant to the certification issues, but granted a narrow request for records identifying the specific products implanted, as this was relevant to the plaintiff's suitability as a representative plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and, alternatively, sought security for costs under Rule 56.01(d).

The court held that a pleading need not expressly name a cause of action provided it pleads sufficient material facts to support a recognized legal claim.

While the claim adequately pleaded causes of action including knowing assistance and inducing breach of contract, the allegation of fraud was materially deficient because it failed to provide particularized allegations against each moving party as required by Rule 25.06(8).

The court struck the fraud allegation with leave to amend but dismissed the remainder of the motion.

The request for security for costs was also dismissed because the evidence of a small PPSR registration did not establish good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a potential costs award.