Grant Worden

The moving parties, comprising various social media companies including Meta, Snap, and TikTok entities, brought motions for leave to appeal the substantive and costs orders of Leiper J. The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal without costs and directed the parties to provide an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The plaintiff, Toronto District School Board, brought an action in negligence and public nuisance against several major social media corporations, alleging that their products were intentionally designed to be addictive to children and caused widespread mental health and behavioral issues among students.

The Board claimed it suffered direct economic damages in responding to these student harms, including increased costs for mental health services, security, and staff training.

The defendant corporations brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, allowing the Board's novel claims in negligence and public nuisance to proceed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated October 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The issue of costs was left to the appeal panel.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants, alleging that their glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The court analyzed the five certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

While the court struck the proposed causes of action for battery and unjust enrichment, it found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action in negligence and failure to warn.

The court approved the proposed class definition, certified several common issues including general causation and punitive damages, and concluded that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The representative plaintiffs moved to discontinue their Ontario class action regarding allegedly defective surgical staplers, intending to rely instead on an overlapping class action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance and sought an indefinite adjournment, arguing that discontinuing the Ontario action before the resolution of their stay application in B.C. would prejudice absent class members by restarting the limitation period.

The court agreed that the risk of limitations prejudice to absent class members was too great and adjourned the motion indefinitely.

The court also invoked the Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of MultiJurisdictional Class Actions to coordinate with the B.C. court.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order striking their statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend, in a product liability action concerning an implanted medical device (Essure).

The Court of Appeal set aside the order, granting leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court clarified that leave to amend should only be denied in the clearest of cases and that, in product liability claims, identifying a specific manufacturing or design defect is not always required at the pleading stage to disclose a cause of action.

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The plaintiff and remaining defendants in a price-fixing class action sought to certify the action on consent, approve class counsel fees, and dismiss the action.

The class members had previously been compensated through a settlement with other defendants.

The court found no prejudice to the class, certified the action, approved class counsel fees of $239,895.26 from trust funds, and dismissed the action without costs.

The Approval Holder brought a motion to adjourn the proceeding in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind park, to allow time to adduce evidence on remedy after the Tribunal found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland.

The Director consented, but the Appellant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it necessary to secure a fair and just determination of the proceeding on its merits, and excluded the adjournment period from the six-month statutory deadline.

The approval holder brought a motion for an adjournment of the proceedings regarding a renewable energy approval for a wind park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 59(2)1.ii of O. Reg. 359/09.

The adjournment was ordered to run until the commencement of the remedy hearing.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a 5-turbine wind facility located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically through hydrogeological impacts and impacts to bird habitat and significant woodlands.

The Tribunal dismissed the health and hydrogeological claims, finding the risks of noise, shadow flicker, and spills were low and adequately mitigated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim regarding grassland bird habitat, finding compensation measures sufficient.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the removal of portions of a significant woodland (SW-11) would cause serious and irreversible harm to the woodland and its function as habitat, as the proposed mitigation and compensation measures would take decades to replace the mature forest being removed.

The Tribunal considered a consent request to adjourn an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval issued to the Approval Holder.

The parties consented to a 39-day adjournment.

Pursuant to s. 59(2)1.i of O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the date of deemed confirmation of the approval to January 15, 2016.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a renewable energy approval issued to the approval holder for a wind park.

During the hearing, the approval holder introduced new evidence regarding grassland and woodland compensation properties.

To allow sufficient time to consider this new evidence and the responding evidence, the Tribunal ordered a 14-day adjournment under O. Reg. 359/09, extending the statutory deadline for the disposition of the appeal.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for a 5-turbine wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and that the REA process violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive expert evidence on wind turbine noise, infrasound, and health impacts, concluding the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the project would cause serious harm to human health.

The Tribunal also found no Charter violation due to the lack of an evidentiary foundation for serious physical or psychological harm.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the environmental claims, finding the project would not cause serious and irreversible harm to bird species at risk or their habitat.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status from the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and two individuals.

The Tribunal granted the requests subject to general conditions, finding that the applicants had a genuine interest and would make a relevant contribution to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also confirmed procedural directions and the hearing schedule.

The appellant in a renewable energy approval appeal brought a motion seeking disclosure of the complete Species At Risk Report submitted by the approval holder to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The approval holder had only disclosed redacted portions it deemed relevant to the appellant's proposed expert evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the report in its entirety, finding it potentially relevant to the appeal.

However, to protect species at risk, the Tribunal ordered that the report be marked confidential and its disclosure limited to the parties' counsel and expert witnesses.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider requests for participant and presenter status in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Municipality of Grey Highlands and the Brewster Lake Home Owners' Association, and presenter status to several individuals, subject to procedural directions limiting duplication and ensuring relevance.

The Tribunal also established the schedule for the hearing.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval issued for a wind facility.

At a preliminary hearing, the Municipality of Grey Highlands sought participant status, while several individuals and a homeowners association sought presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the requests, subject to the condition that their presentations be relevant to the permissible grounds of appeal and confined to the issues raised in the notice of appeal.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and a schedule for the main hearing.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed class action against a pharmaceutical manufacturer regarding the oral contraceptives Yasmin and YAZ.

The proposed class included Ontario residents prescribed and using the drugs prior to November 30, 2011, and derivative claimants under the Family Law Act.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence in the design, testing, marketing, and warning associated with the drospirenone component, claiming it posed greater risks than other oral contraceptives.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, that the proposed class and common issues were sufficiently defined, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Certification was granted with certain modifications to the class definition and litigation plan.