Dakota Forster

The defendants, two children's aid societies, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action without leave to amend pursuant to Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff commenced the action in January 2025 against the defendants over their involvement in seeking child protection orders affecting the plaintiff's child in 2017.

The action alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of Charter rights.

The court found the action constituted an improper collateral attack on existing court orders and that the specific causes of action were untenable in law.

The action was struck out without leave to amend, and costs of $2,500 per defendant were awarded.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing and a timetable order to set the action down for trial.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

The underlying action was a subrogated claim by TD Insurance for foundation damage to the plaintiff's home, allegedly caused by construction at the Chinese embassy.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the action for delay, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to lack of transparency, failure to obtain a confidentiality order, inappropriate venue, and remediation work done without notice to the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis for PCL and fixed amounts for the other parties.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

Certas Home & Auto Insurance Company appealed an interim arbitration decision which held that Unifund Assurance Company had complied with the notice provisions under s. 3(1) of O. Reg. 283/95 (Disputes Between Insurers) by providing timely notice of a priority dispute for statutory accident benefits.

The core issue was the interpretation of "completed application" and when the 90-day notice period for disputing liability began.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the regulation.

The court affirmed that a "completed application" for the purpose of s. 3 means one that provides sufficient information to allow the first insurer to notify another insurer of a dispute, not merely a filled-out and signed OCF-1 form.