Candace Mak

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $5,000,000 settlement in a class proceeding against a Children's Aid Society regarding a privacy breach where confidential client information was leaked online.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee of approximately $1.6 million plus disbursements, applying the Smith Estate factors, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff to be paid from counsel's fees.

This class action concerned a health hazard at a dental practice due to improperly cleaned instruments, leading to potential exposure to Hepatitis B, C, and HIV for approximately 9,000 patients.

The court approved a proposed settlement of $1,550,000 in damages, plus costs and disbursements, resulting in a net settlement amount of $1,058,550.

The settlement fund was divided into an Infected Claims Fund (70%) and an Exposed (Uninfected) Claims Fund (30%), with provisions for the Ontario Ministry of Health's subrogated claim.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $465,000, plus HST and disbursements, based on a 30% contingency fee.

The approval was based on the settlement being fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering litigation risks and the benefits of a streamlined claims process.

At a case conference, the parties presented a proposed settlement of the class action and sought approval for the Short Form and Long Form Notice to notify class members.

The court approved the proposed forms and means of notice, noting they were effectively the same as those used for the certification order.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for February 5, 2021.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The Representative Plaintiffs sought substantial or partial indemnity costs following a successful conditional certification motion in a class action.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $35,000 for the certification motion and $1,000 for costs submissions.

The court rejected substantial indemnity, finding the defendant's conduct in resisting certification was not egregious and did not warrant a punitive award.

It also found the plaintiff's Offer to Settle ill-advised and an "ill fit" for a certification motion, which is a mandatory procedural step that does not decide the merits of the case.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to revise a conditional Certification Order, approve the Notice of Certification, and determine costs.

The court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to revise the Certification Order, as it was properly taken out and there was no mistake.

The court approved a modified Notice of Certification and directed the parties to make written submissions on costs.

This case conference order, issued amidst temporary court suspensions due to COVID-19, established a timetable for a class action proceeding.

The court provided specific directions for the conduct of a "Wagg motion" and set a tentative date for the certification motion.

Directions included provisions for electronic swearing of affidavits, service methods, and electronic filing of materials, aiming to facilitate the litigation process under the prevailing restrictions.

The plaintiffs in a conditionally certified class action sought court approval for new Class Counsel, a precondition for certification.

The defendant withdrew its decertification motion and consented to the appointment.

The court appointed Flaherty McCarthy LLP and Mack Lawyers as Class Counsel, rendering the action unconditionally certified.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions for settlement purposes against three immigration lawyers.

The plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' representation of Roma refugee claimants from Hungary.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motions for certification were granted.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action alleging negligence against a dental office for improperly sterilized equipment leading to infectious disease exposure.

The defendants had issued a third-party claim against dental hygienists.

The parties reached an agreement on the terms of the Certification Order.

The court found an identifiable class with four sub-classes and agreed-upon common issues related to negligence.

The plaintiff was deemed an appropriate representative, and a litigation plan was accepted.

The action met the criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and was certified as a class proceeding.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against his own motor vehicle liability insurer for uninsured or unidentified automobile coverage.

The appellant was struck from behind in a motor vehicle accident and argued that if the jury found neither of the two identified drivers liable at trial, he should be able to recover under the uninsured/unidentified automobile coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that there was no unidentified automobile involved in the accident and that the sole question at trial would be which, if either, of the two known vehicles or drivers was legally responsible.

This decision addresses several procedural and evidentiary motions within a proposed class action.

M.M. sought to discontinue her action against Ms. Denham.

The Society sought to convert its crossclaim against Ms. Denham into a third-party claim, convert Ms. Denham's crossclaim into a counterclaim, have the third-party action case managed in Toronto with the class action, and obtain a sealing order.

Ms. Denham opposed the Toronto case management and requested a transfer to Perth/East Region.

The court granted the sealing order, M.M.'s discontinuance, the conversion of claims, and the joint case management/trial.

Crucially, the court conditionally transferred the class action and third-party proceedings to the East Region, finding no advantage to Toronto management beyond counsel convenience and significant inconvenience to Ms. Denham.

The plaintiff moved to certify a class action against a children's aid society and other defendants following a privacy breach where a confidential document containing personal information of 284 individuals was accessed and posted online.

The defendants consented to or did not oppose certification.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, including the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and that all criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied.

The motion for certification was granted.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for medical and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant argued the plaintiff's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) $3,500 cap and that no evidence supported the income replacement claim.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to put his best foot forward by adducing medical evidence to rebut the defendant's section 44 assessments.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's dismissal of her personal injury action for abandonment under Rule 48.

The action arose from a 2009 rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff had difficulty serving the defendant driver, who had moved frequently and had her license suspended for failing to pay fines related to the accident.

The court found the plaintiff had an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The motion was granted and the action was restored to active status.

The appellant insurer appealed a Divisional Court judgment dismissing its application for judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate.

The Director's Delegate had found that the two-year limitation period for the respondent to apply for mediation regarding a denied non-earner benefit did not begin to run until the insurer provided the medical report it relied upon in its denial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Director's Delegate's interpretation of the home statute was reasonable and entitled to deference.