Gerry Antman

An individual claimant in a class action regarding administrative segregation brought a motion seeking approval to use confidential placement data of other inmates.

The claimant's counsel had inadvertently gained access to and downloaded this data from the claims administrator's database due to a legacy system error.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no basis under PIPEDA, the Privacy Act, or the Class Proceedings Act to permit the disclosure of the personal information, as it would not advance access to justice and would violate class members' privacy rights.

Furthermore, the court found the data was not relevant to the claimant's individual claim.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 2023 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

Five bellwether individual issues trials were heard as summary judgment motions to determine whether class members who were placed in administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries were entitled to additional compensatory damages beyond their share of the aggregate damages award.

The court assessed the idiosyncratic harm suffered by each plaintiff, taking into account their pre-existing mental health conditions and other stressors.

The court awarded additional compensatory damages to three plaintiffs ($50,000, $25,000, and $75,000) who proved that their time in segregation caused specific, additional harm.

The claims of the other two plaintiffs were dismissed as they failed to prove causation.

The court declined to award punitive damages in any of the cases.

The self-represented appellant filed an appeal from a decision denying him standing to make submissions regarding the distribution of benefits in a class proceeding.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 to consider dismissing the appeal as frivolous, as the appellant relied on a statutory provision that did not apply to his circumstances.

However, because the appellant sought in the alternative to amend his pleadings to seek leave to appeal under the Courts of Justice Act, the court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1 and directed that the motion for leave be placed before a panel of the Divisional Court.

This decision, Part 9 of a series in a multi-jurisdictional class action, addresses bitterly contested motions by both the Attorney General of Canada and Class Counsel to revise the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The dispute centered on the scope of reply position statements for Track 2 claims.

Canada sought to limit replies strictly to mitigating factors and causation rebuttal, while Class Counsel argued for broader replies to new issues raised by Canada.

The court denied both parties' specific requests, instead directing a revision to allow Canada a right of sur-reply if a claimant files a reply, and imposing an increased payment to the Manager/Expert in such instances.

The ruling aims to ensure fair, efficient, and proportionate litigation while discouraging procedural abuses by either party.

This is Part 10 of a series of joint decisions in multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec).

Class Counsel sought further revisions to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP), specifically to increase the $6,000 costs cap for Track 2 claims to $12,000, and to add a clause about Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applying to Track 2/3 claims, and to apply ordinary costs rules for contested Track 2 motions.

The court approved the latter two unopposed requests but denied the request to increase the costs cap, emphasizing proportionality and the need to simplify procedures rather than increase costs.

In a consolidated class action, Class Counsel sought partial indemnity costs for their work on a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the costs for DIIP development had been prepaid as part of prior counsel fee approvals.

The decision emphasized that DIIP creation is a necessary and collaborative aspect of class proceedings, not an event warranting additional 'success' costs, and clarified that prior judicial statements about future payments referred to costs already accounted for.

The plaintiffs in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation brought a consent motion to vary the Distribution and Issues Protocol to address late claims.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec jointly approved the consent order, granting leave for certain class members to file late claims and setting out the process for distributing compensation to those claimants.

The applicant, a self-represented prisoner and class member in a class action regarding administrative segregation, brought a motion seeking to challenge and amend the court-approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant lacked standing to seek amendments as he had not opted out of the class action and was bound by the outcomes negotiated by representative plaintiffs.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant's recent placement in administrative segregation occurred after the class period had closed, placing it outside the scope of the class action, and that his criticisms of the protocol were based on a misunderstanding of its revisions.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to compel the class action administrator (Epiq) to disclose contact information of "Unlawfully at Large" (UAL) claimants to law enforcement.

The class members, through their counsel, opposed this, arguing it was an improper use of class action administration powers and a violation of Charter rights, suggesting that the Criminal Code's production order process was the appropriate mechanism.

The court, in a joint decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec, denied the Attorney General's broad request.

Instead, it granted a modified order, allowing disclosure only if the Attorney General first obtains a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, thereby upholding the proper legal process for obtaining such information while acknowledging the Attorney General's good faith in bringing the motion.

This is Part 6 of a joint decision concerning the ongoing administration of multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec) against the Attorney General of Canada regarding administrative segregation.

The parties brought a joint, consensual motion to amend sections 10.1 and 11.2 of the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aim to resolve issues arising from "BRG Crossover" claimants (those with placements in both Ontario and Quebec) and misallocated claimants, by allowing claimants to elect the court (Ontario or Quebec) that will review their claims, provided there is a connection to that jurisdiction.

The court approved the amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of class members and conducive to cost-effective and expeditious claim determination.

This is Part 7 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning multi-jurisdictional class actions (Brazeau, Reddock, Gallone).

The decision addresses a consensual motion by the parties to streamline the payment process for "Track 2, Box 1 only Claims" under the previously approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The courts approved an order confirming that payments to class members, class counsel, and the Class Proceedings Fund will be made periodically (every 75 days after a cut-off date) without requiring further motions for confirmation, thereby enhancing judicial economy and access to justice.

The parties in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation sought the courts' approval for consensual amendments to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aimed to streamline the claims process, implement an estates protocol, adjust damages calculations, and expedite the payment of aggregate damages to eligible class members.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec jointly approved the proposed amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of the class members and the most efficient means of adjudicating individual issues.

The plaintiff brought a motion to conditionally strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The trial had previously resulted in a mistrial in January 2020 due to the plaintiff's health crisis.

Citing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting backlog of civil jury trials in Brampton, the plaintiff argued that further delay would cause prejudice, particularly regarding income loss limits and increasing statutory deductibles under the Insurance Act.

The court granted the motion, conditionally striking the jury notice to allow the trial to proceed before a judge alone if a jury trial could not be accommodated during the January 2022 sittings.

The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, arguing the respondent insurer unreasonably withheld and delayed income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the respondent acted unreasonably by relying solely on an insurer examination report that contradicted other medical evidence, and by failing to reassess the claim when new medical information, including surgical records, was provided.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant a lump sum of 35% of the withheld IRBs plus interest.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the anticipated lengthy delay in scheduling a jury trial would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff, including financial hardship and the cost of updating expert reports.

The court provisionally struck the jury notice, ordering that it be automatically reinstated if juries are being empanelled when the matter is called to trial.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge had dismissed the claim as incomprehensible and non-compliant with Rule 25.06.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge erred in applying Rule 2.1 as a substitute for addressing pleading defects, the appeal was dismissed on the substantive ground that the appellant lacked standing to advance the claim.

The claim concerned errors by lawyers retained by her fiancé and insurance payments owed to him.

Upon the fiancé's death in 2015, any such rights devolved to his estate, not to the appellant personally.

The appellant's assertion that she was the executor of a will was unsupported by evidence.