Deborah Templer

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

The appellants' action was administratively dismissed for delay after their solicitors failed to receive a status notice sent to the wrong address.

The motion judge refused to set aside the dismissal, finding the appellants failed to adequately explain the delay or prove a lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the action, holding that the motion judge failed to give sufficient weight to the non-receipt of the status notice and erred in his assessment of prejudice by ignoring the respondent's own passivity in the litigation.

Multiple tobacco manufacturer defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $300,000 after withdrawing previously scheduled motions to strike the Crown’s statement of claim in a health care cost recovery action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

The defendants argued they were the successful parties because their motions prompted extensive amendments to the pleading and that the Crown delayed notifying them of its intention to amend.

The court held that the amendments addressed only some of the alleged deficiencies and that significant legal issues remained unresolved when the defendants chose to withdraw the motions.

As a result, success on the motions was considered divided.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The appellant appealed an order recognizing a foreign default judgment, arguing that the English process denied him natural justice through the registration of the default judgment, refusal to set it aside, denial of an adjournment, and absence of reasons for a costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had ample opportunity to be heard had he complied with the English rules of court, and that the denial of an adjournment was an exercise of judicial discretion.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they made fraudulent misrepresentations inducing the respondents to purchase a restaurant business.

The trial judge ordered rescission, general damages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, rescission, and punitive damages.

However, the Court reduced the general damages by $70,000 due to a lack of evidence for a management fee claim.

The Court also reduced the costs award, holding that awarding substantial indemnity costs based on the same conduct that justified punitive damages amounted to double compensation.