Celeste Poltak

The plaintiff sought certification of a class proceeding against the defendant bank, alleging the improper charging of duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions.

The defendant consented to the certification.

The court, applying the five criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues were raised, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was adequate.

Consequently, the action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the defendant bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment due to the bank's practice of charging duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debits.

The motion for certification was brought with the defendant's consent.

The court applied the five-part test under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues were raised, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was adequate.

The court granted the certification order.

The Superior Court of Justice approved identical third-party funding agreements in four related class actions against major Canadian banks.

The actions allege that the banks charged duplicative non-sufficient funds fees on single dishonoured pre-authorized debits.

The court, applying Section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found the agreements to be fair and reasonable, noting the staged success fee was comparable to or more advantageous than the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The court confirmed the agreements preserved plaintiff control over litigation, ensured the funder's financial capacity for adverse costs, and included appropriate confidentiality and deemed undertaking provisions.

The defendants took no position on the motions.

The plaintiff, Tyler Dufault, moved for court approval of a class action settlement against The Toronto-Dominion Bank and The Canada Trust Company concerning the practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debits.

The proposed settlement included an all-inclusive payment of $15.9 million, direct distribution of funds to eligible class members, and non-monetary changes to the defendants' NSF fee disclosure and reversal policies.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the high take-up rate due to direct distribution and the significant non-monetary benefits.

The court also approved class counsel's fees and disbursements, third-party funder fees, and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Robyn Ramanauskas, brought a consent motion to certify a class proceeding against the Bank of Montreal.

The action alleged that the bank charged duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions, constituting breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The court found that all criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class proceeding against the defendant bank regarding its practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions.

The court reviewed the five-part test under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and that the other criteria including an identifiable class and common issues were met, the court granted the consent certification order.

The appellant, through her litigation guardian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that reversed a certification order for a proposed class action against the Government of Ontario.

The class action alleged negligence in the administration of services for adults with developmental disabilities and a breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in recharacterizing the negligence claim as impugning core policy decisions and in striking the section 7 Charter claim.

The Court held that the negligence claim concerned operational failures within existing resources, and the section 7 claim alleged psychological harm from the arbitrary administration of waitlists for approved services, which was not foreclosed by existing jurisprudence.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the motion judge's certification order.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the agreed-upon amount of $3,500.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank sought summary judgment to dismiss a proposed class action alleging that it improperly charged a second Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) fee for a single rejected payment that was subsequently re-presented by a third-party payee (PayPal).

The plaintiff argued that the bank's standard consumer banking agreement did not disclose this second fee, constituting a breach of contract, a contravention of consumer protection law, and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the NSF provision in the agreement unambiguously applied only to payments initiated by the customer, not to re-presentments by third parties.

The bank's argument that federal "Network Rules" mandated the second fee or informed the agreement's interpretation was rejected, as these rules were not known to consumers and did not address NSF fees.

Consequently, the bank's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, allowing the class action to proceed to certification.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent for an order granting leave to discontinue the proposed class action without costs and without notice to putative class members.

The certification motion had previously been dismissed and the action continued as an individual action.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to former proposed class members who had sufficient opportunity to bring their own claims, which were being case-managed together.

Following the release of its decision allowing the Crown's appeal and setting aside a class action certification order, the Divisional Court entertained post-decision submissions from the respondent based on two new Court of Appeal decisions regarding state liability in negligence.

The court concluded that the new decisions applied settled law and did not alter its previous reasoning.

The court amended its previous disposition to clarify that while the appeal is allowed and the certification order is set aside, the underlying action is not dismissed, leaving that issue for the parties to address below.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against the Crown for failure to hold timely bail hearings, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter rights violations.

The motion judge dismissed certification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no cause of action in negligence (claims attacked core policy decisions), the fiduciary duty claim abandoned, and the Charter claims lacking common issues and not being a preferable procedure due to the need for individualized assessments.

The plaintiff, acting as litigation guardian for his developmentally disabled daughter, brought a proposed class action against Ontario alleging negligence and section 7 Charter violations regarding the administration of waitlists for adult developmental services.

The motion judge certified the negligence and Charter claims.

Ontario appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court unanimously allowed the appeal regarding the Charter claims, finding no positive obligation on the state to provide social assistance.

A majority of the court also allowed the appeal regarding the negligence claims, holding that the administration of the benefits program is a core policy decision protected by Crown immunity.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff's class action for systemic negligence in bail hearings was denied certification.

On appeal, the Crown raised the new Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (CLPA) as a bar to the negligence claim.

The Divisional Court remitted this specific issue to the motion judge.

The judge found that the CLPA did not substantially change the common law on Crown immunity and that the plaintiff's claim, which challenged high-level policy decisions regarding resource allocation and management of the criminal justice system, remained non-justiciable as a core policy matter, both under the CLPA and pre-CLPA common law.

Consequently, the negligence claim was deemed dismissed without costs under s. 11(8) of the CLPA.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision declaring that the limitation period for putative class members remained suspended under s. 28(1) of the Class Proceedings Act following the denial of class certification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 28(1) provides an exhaustive list of circumstances that resume a limitation period, and denial of certification is not among them.

Consequently, the limitation period remains suspended indefinitely following a denial of certification, a result the court noted must be addressed by the Legislature.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court issued directions regarding the use of Zoom, attire, and the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities via a password-protected drop box.

The Superior Court of Justice, on remittal from the Divisional Court, reconsidered the certification of an operational negligence class action claim against the provincial government in light of the newly enacted Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) and a constitutional challenge under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the operational negligence claim was statute-barred by the CLPA, particularly due to the "decision" requirement in s. 11(4) of the CLPA and the plaintiff's pleadings.

Furthermore, the court determined that the s. 96 constitutional challenge to the CLPA was not plainly and obviously doomed to fail, emphasizing the importance of access to courts and the Supreme Court's caution against restoring complete governmental immunity by broadly defining "policy matters." The court concluded that the meaning and constitutionality of the CLPA should be decided on a complete record at trial or summary judgment, not on a pleadings motion.

The original certification of the operational negligence claim remained intact, and a new common issue regarding the CLPA's effect was added by consent.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from an order certifying a class action against Ontario.

The underlying class action alleges negligence and Charter breaches in the provision of services to adults with developmental disabilities.

On appeal, Ontario argues that the recently enacted Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 provides immunity from the negligence claims.

The CCLA sought to intervene to argue that Ontario's expansive interpretation of the Act's immunity provisions violates section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court granted the motion, finding that the CCLA would make a useful and distinct contribution to a matter of public importance without causing injustice or undue delay to the parties.

This decision addresses a rehearing on class counsel's legal fees and the calculation of the Class Proceedings Fund (CPF) levy in a class action settlement.

The court approved the 25% contingency fee, finding it fair and reasonable based on the risk incurred and results achieved, despite an earlier judge's concerns about the settlement's modesty.

The court also determined that the CPF levy should be calculated on the total amount class members were entitled to receive ($10.2 million), rather than the amount actually paid out ($7.5 million), aligning with the settlement agreement and O. Reg. 771/92.

This initial case conference for a proposed class action addressed the scheduling of proceedings leading to a certification motion.

The primary issue was whether the defendant's challenge to the plaintiff's cause of action should proceed as a pre-certification motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure or be raised within the certification motion under section 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court, emphasizing the avoidance of 'litigation by instalments,' determined that the cause of action challenge should be made during the certification motion to prevent piecemeal litigation and potential delays from pre-certification appeals.

A schedule for the certification motion was subsequently set.