Golnaz Nayerahmadi

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, alleging the defendant was grossly negligent in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic at Oakwood Park, a long-term care home.

The classes comprised residents and visitors who contracted COVID-19 and their family members during the period January 25, 2020 to May 5, 2023.

The defendant consented to certification.

The court found all five certification requirements satisfied, including cause of action, identifiable class, common issues supported by expert methodology on causation and damages, preferability of a class proceeding, and adequate representative plaintiffs with a workable litigation plan.

Two class action proceedings—one against TELUS Communications Company and related entities, and one against Bell Mobility Inc.—were brought by plaintiffs alleging that the defendants engaged in similar practices of rounding up seconds to minutes on cell phone bills.

The defendants moved to consolidate the two actions for trial or summary judgment.

The court granted the motion to hear the two summary judgment motions consecutively in a single three-week block of hearing time, finding that the common issues were identical and that separate proceedings would create an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and risk inconsistent findings.

However, the court determined that the case management judge would not preside over the summary judgment motions, as the principles underlying Rules 37.15(1) and 77.06(2)—which prohibit a case management judge from presiding at trial without consent—apply equally to summary judgment motions.

This costs endorsement addresses the Plaintiff's entitlement to costs following an unsuccessful motion by the Defendants to amend the certification of a class action.

The court awards the Plaintiff $150,000 in costs, finding the Defendants' objections unpersuasive, particularly in the absence of their own Bill of Costs for comparison.

The court commends Plaintiff's counsel, especially Ms. Nayerahmadi, for effective advocacy.

The court dismissed TELUS’s motion to amend the certification order in a class action regarding alleged systematic overbilling of mobile phone customers.

TELUS sought to decertify aggregate damages as a common issue and to require individual inquiries into class membership, arguing that business and consumer customers could not be reliably distinguished.

The court found that TELUS’s arguments and evidence were not new and had already been addressed at certification.

The court reaffirmed that TELUS’s internal records and account types provide a sufficiently reliable basis for distinguishing between business and consumer customers, and that any residual issues can be managed administratively after the common issues trial.

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 Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Shantanu Shirodkar’s appeal seeking to certify a class action against Coinbase Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries for alleged violations of securities laws.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction over the non-Canadian Coinbase entities and that Ireland was the preferable forum for the claims, staying the action against Coinbase Canada as well.

The decision addresses the interpretation of forum selection clauses, the application of the “real and substantial connection” test, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the context of cross-border crypto-asset trading.

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.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

This motion concerned the approval of a proposed settlement and counsel fees in a national class action against pharmaceutical companies.

The class action alleged that the atypical antipsychotic medications ABILIFY and ABILIFY MAINTENA caused various compulsive behaviours due to inadequate warnings.

The court approved a $14.75 million settlement fund, which includes compensation for class members suffering psychological harm, residual catastrophic injury, and financial loss, as well as honoraria for representative plaintiffs and class counsel fees.

The court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable, falling within the 'zone of reasonableness' despite objections from some class members regarding compensation adequacy and counsel fees.

The Plaintiffs in multiple class actions brought an omnibus motion for approval of a proposed notice plan, including direct notice and production orders from Defendants, following a complex certification decision where some actions were certified, some partially, and some dismissed.

The court denied the request for direct notice and associated production orders, finding it would impose a substantial and undue burden on defendants, particularly those against whom certification was denied.

The court also noted that such production could be seen as an attempt to solicit new representative plaintiffs or re-litigate issues already decided at the certification stage.

An indirect notice strategy was approved, and costs for the notice plan were allocated, with the Plaintiffs bearing a larger share.

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.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a class action, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding leave to pursue claims against Barrick Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations under the Ontario Securities Act.

The appeal concerned the denial of leave for certain misrepresentation allegations related to Barrick's capital expenditure budget and production schedule, and the identification of public correction dates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that there was no reasonable possibility of success for the additional misrepresentation claims and that the earlier public disclosure fully corrected the alleged misrepresentations, thereby limiting the class period.

The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government for its response to COVID-19 in long-term care homes, asserting claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of Charter s. 7.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care (MLTC) but struck the other claims.

This appeal and cross-appeal challenged that decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appellants' appeal (seeking to certify the struck claims) and the respondent's cross-appeal (seeking to decertify the negligence claim against the MLTC), thereby upholding the motion judge's original certification decision.

The plaintiffs successfully defended a motion by the defendant to amend the certified class definition.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $88,296.33.

The defendant argued the amount was too high and suggested $45,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs request slightly excessive due to unwarranted allegations of abuse of process, which unnecessarily protracted the matter.

The court reduced the requested amount by approximately 20% and awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, payable within 30 days.

This appeal concerned a motion judge's order regarding a class action.

The core issues were whether a discontinued cause of action and defendants could be added to an existing class action (the Martin action) and whether that action would then be governed by the old Class Proceedings Act, 1992, or the amended Act.

The motion judge had ordered the "recast" Martin action to proceed under the amended Act and denied leave to add a party (MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) based on limitations.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in ordering the Martin action to be governed by the amended Act, as Section 39 of the amended Act clearly dictates that actions commenced before October 1, 2020, remain under the old Act.

The court also found an error in dismissing the motion to add MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. based on the Limitations Act, stating that limitation periods are typically individual issues in class actions.

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part, clarifying that the Martin action continues under the old Act, and a re-filed Rowland action (including MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) would proceed under the amended Act.

Following a successful motion to certify a class action regarding psychiatric treatment at the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, the plaintiffs sought costs of $713,798.85 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Crown defendants opposed the quantum, arguing the fees were unreasonable and should be reduced by at least 50% or made payable in the cause.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, noting they failed to provide their own bill of costs for comparison.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $675,000 all-inclusive, payable forthwith.

The Defendant, Bell Mobility Inc., brought a motion to amend the certified class definition in a class action, seeking either to exclude business customers or to compel the addition of a new sub-class with a separate representative plaintiff.

The Defendant argued that business customers might be statute-barred or had distinct interests requiring separate representation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation issue was not ripe for determination on a class-wide basis as it required individualized discoverability analysis.

The court also declined to create a new sub-class, emphasizing judicial economy and the principle against "litigation in installments" given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario regarding the psychiatric treatment of patients detained in the PST Unit of the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital between 1976 and 1992.

The plaintiffs alleged that the 'PST Program' was an experimental, abusive therapeutic community that improperly delegated treatment and punishment decisions to 'patient-teachers', resulting in physical and psychological harm.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and breaches of sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

However, the court narrowed the common issues, certifying questions related to systemic negligence, fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and limitation periods, while directing that Charter breaches, causation, and damages must be determined at individual issues trials.

The court concluded that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to advance the claims of the highly marginalized class members.