Lauren Tomasich

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to certify four additional common issues in two related class actions brought by former employees regarding the distribution of a pension plan surplus.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the viability of the cause of action under s. 8(10) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, finding it was not plain and obvious that the employer-administrator was not in a conflict of interest.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to amend the class definition in one of the actions to remove restrictive and vague language.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying common issues in a class proceeding regarding a pension plan surplus.

The plaintiffs, former employees who took the commuted value of their pensions, alleged a beneficial interest in the surplus and conflicts of interest by the defendants.

The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b), finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order because established case law holds that members who transfer out their commuted value have no rights to an ongoing plan's surplus.

The court also found the issues to be of broad importance to pension plan administrators.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class proceeding arising from a pension surplus dispute involving former employees who left the pension plan after taking commuted values during a work force adjustment.

The court treated the action as a companion to related pension litigation and certified common issues mirroring those already certified in the related action, including additional conflict of interest issues under the PBSA.

The court rejected the argument that the proposed class definition was irrationally over-inclusive or under-inclusive, found the class action procedure preferable, and accepted the proposed representatives.

The action was certified, the plaintiffs were directed to deliver an updated litigation plan, and the two related actions were ordered to be tried together subject to the trial judge's discretion.

The appellant, Inco Limited, appealed a costs order awarding it $1,766,000 following its successful defence of a class action at the Court of Appeal.

Inco argued it was entitled to over $5.3 million and that the trial judge erred by reducing its legal fees and applying a 50 per cent discount under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's determination that the environmental tort class action raised novel points of law and involved matters of public interest.

The court upheld the trial judge's methodical and reasonable costs analysis.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the Commissioner of Competition to provide further particulars of alleged misleading representations pleaded under paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Competition Act concerning premium text messaging services.

The defendants argued that the statement of claim failed to identify the specific alleged misrepresentations and related details necessary to prepare their defences.

The court held that the pleading sufficiently described the alleged deceptive marketing practices and that the requested particulars largely sought evidentiary details, which are properly obtained through discovery rather than particulars.

Given that the alleged representations could number in the hundreds or more and concerned matters within the defendants’ knowledge, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the request for further particulars.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The appellants, former employees of CMHC, sought to certify class proceedings claiming that CMHC breached its duties by failing to partially terminate its pension plan and distribute the surplus to them after a workforce downsizing.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused to certify the common issues, finding no viable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the court lacks jurisdiction to order an employer to partially terminate a pension plan or to award damages premised on a partial termination.

The court also upheld the refusal to certify a misrepresentation claim and the denial of costs out of the pension fund.

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 appellants, including the Minister of Agriculture of Guyana and a state-owned company, appealed the dismissal of their motion to dismiss a defamation claim on the grounds of state immunity.

The motion judge found that the Minister's statements, made in the context of an ongoing trademark dispute, fell within the commercial activity exception under s. 5 of the State Immunity Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, applying the contextual approach from Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraq, and concluded that the statements promoted Guyana's brand and disparaged a competitor, thus constituting commercial activity.