Laura Elizabeth Dougan

The plaintiff, a rideshare driver, commenced a proposed class action alleging that Lyft drivers are employees and entitled to protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The defendants moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on the arbitration agreement in their Terms of Service.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement was inaccessible, uncertain, unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and an unlawful contracting out of employment standards.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the arbitration agreement accessible, valid, and enforceable.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proposed class action in favour of arbitration.

This case management conference endorsement addresses the timetable for a complex action, primarily focusing on the delivery of expert reports and amended pleadings.

The court resolved disagreements between the plaintiff, defendants, and intervener regarding deadlines for expert reports, particularly those from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) and experts who had been ill.

The court also set a deadline for Ontario's defence to Canada's cross-claim, prioritizing realistic timelines and efficiency over the plaintiff's desire for earlier closures.

The plaintiff, Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, brought a motion to amend its statement of claim in a long-standing action concerning the Haldimand Tract.

The defendants did not oppose the amendments but sought extensive time to deliver responding expert reports.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the claim that pleaded breaches of duty 'by example'.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that pleading by example was appropriate given the plaintiff's claim for a complete accounting.

The court granted the motion to amend and set a timeline for the defendants to deliver responding expert evidence, rejecting the defendants' request for a multi-year extension based on their internal retention processes.

Costs of $90,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed the timing for the delivery of the defendants' expert reports and the scheduling of motions to amend and strike pleadings.

The defendants sought to vacate expert report deadlines, arguing new claims required new experts.

The court largely denied this, granting only a brief extension for expert reports to June 9, 2023, with an exception for an ill expert.

The court also granted leave for the defendants' cross-motion to strike portions of the pleading, ordering it to be heard concurrently with the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 30, 2023, emphasizing the need to settle pleading propriety before summer.

This appeal concerned a certified class action against Ford Motor Company regarding allegedly false or misleading fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels and in marketing materials for 2013 and 2014 vehicles.

The class action alleged breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection legislation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the class action, finding that Ford complied with mandatory federal guidelines for fuel consumption testing (2-Cycle Test) and that the representations were not false or misleading.

The court also addressed the "credulous and inexperienced consumer" standard, noting its applicability varies by statute, and found no deceptive non-disclosure.

A case management conference was held in an Aboriginal land claim action to address procedural issues.

The defendants sought clarification of the plaintiff's claims following the delivery of the plaintiff's expert reports.

The court directed the defendants to deliver demands for particulars and written interrogatories, and the plaintiff to respond or amend its statement of claim.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports due to delays.

Finally, the court ordered that parties must not disclose unfiled expert reports to non-parties, other than retained or potential experts, without first raising the issue in case management.

At a case conference in a proposed class action regarding denied trip cancellation benefits due to COVID-19, the court determined the sequencing of a proposed Rule 21 motion by the defendant bank and the plaintiff's certification motion.

The court held that hearing the Rule 21 motion prior to certification would not substantially narrow the issues, as the substantive claims against the co-defendant insurer would remain identical.

Exercising its discretion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court ordered the Rule 21 motion to be heard at the same time as the certification motion.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision finding that the definition of 'minor injury' and the requirement for documented pre-existing conditions in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) violated section 15 of the Charter.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator erred by deciding the constitutional questions in a factual vacuum before determining whether the claimant actually suffered from chronic pain or had an undocumented pre-existing condition.

The arbitrator's order was rescinded, and the matter was remitted to arbitration for a determination on the merits of the claim for a psychological assessment.

Three Toronto police officers charged with sexual assault sought a publication ban on investigative materials filed by the Crown in a related application to remove counsel.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, finding a real and substantial risk to trial fairness due to potential juror stigmatization and witness tainting, especially given the salacious nature of the allegations against police officers.

While acknowledging the public interest in scrutiny, the court determined that allowing media access to the information (without publication) and expert commentary provided a sufficient substitute for full public disclosure.

The publication ban was granted, prohibiting publication until the jury retires or the charge is withdrawn/dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order and reinstate a libel action that had been dismissed for delay.

Applying the reinstatement factors, the court found no adequate explanation for the prolonged delay, no prompt motion to reinstate, and actual as well as presumed prejudice to the defendants.

The court emphasized that the delay appeared deliberate rather than inadvertent, and that reinstatement would undermine finality in the administration of justice.

The motion was denied and the dismissal order remained in place.

Two defendants moved for leave to amend their statements of defence to add limitations defences in an action alleging uncredited credit card transaction proceeds.

The plaintiff argued that leave under Rule 48.04 was required after the matter was set down for trial and that the limitations defences were themselves barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that, even if Rule 48.04 leave were necessary, it should be granted, and rejected the argument that a limitations defence constitutes a statutory claim subject to the same limitation period.

Applying Rule 26.01, the court found no non-compensable prejudice and granted leave to amend.

Costs were awarded to the successful moving defendants on a reduced partial indemnity basis.