Laura K. Fric

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the defendant pharmaceutical companies for manufacturing and distributing valsartan contaminated with NDMA and NDEA, which are probable human carcinogens.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for psychological harm and pure economic losses (medical bills, medical monitoring, refunds, and wasted pills) arising from the increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer, but explicitly did not claim damages for actually developing cancer.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the law does not recognize a cause of action for the mere creation of risk or for pure economic loss from shoddy but not imminently dangerous goods, and therefore the claims failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation as statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and to dismiss the proposed class action.

The plaintiff had commenced a proposed class action for secondary market misrepresentations following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered his claim by 2010, but did not plead fraudulent misrepresentation until 2019.

The court held it was plain and obvious the claim was statute barred and struck it.

As the plaintiff was disqualified from being a representative plaintiff for the remaining truncated statutory claims, the entire action was dismissed.

The defendants sought costs of $35,000 all-inclusive after successfully bringing a motion to stay the action.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing it was excessive.

The court found the defendants were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and previous costs awards in similar litigation involving the plaintiff, the court awarded the defendants costs in the amount of $17,500 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Hydro One Networks on behalf of customers who were allegedly overcharged due to a malfunctioning customer information system (CIS) implemented in 2013.

The plaintiff advanced claims for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment, seeking $100 million in aggregate damages.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues lacked commonality because the alleged systemic negligence produced a multiplicity of errors requiring individual inquiries.

The court also found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as individual issues trials would be inevitable and the Ontario Energy Board's complaint process offered a superior alternative for resolving the billing disputes.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that the plaintiff's proposed class action claims for secondary market misrepresentations under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act were statute-barred.

The court found that 11 of the 14 alleged misrepresentations occurred more than three years before the action was commenced and were therefore statute-barred under s. 138.14.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that s. 138.3(6) could save the claims by treating them as a single continuous misrepresentation.

However, the court found that the remaining three misrepresentation claims were not necessarily statute-barred, as the plaintiff had served a notice of motion for leave before the limitation period expired, allowing for potential reliance on the nunc pro tunc doctrine.

The moving party sought to lift a stay of proceedings previously granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Following the stay, the moving party's attempt to pursue a class action in the United States for pre-explosion misrepresentations was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the responding party conceded the claim was governed by Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal found these new developments constituted facts arising after the order that justified lifting the stay to avoid an injustice, allowing the moving party to proceed with the claim in Ontario.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing its motion to stay or dismiss a proposed Ontario class proceeding for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The respondent, an Ontario resident, had purchased the issuer's shares on the New York Stock Exchange, and a parallel securities proceeding based on substantially the same alleged misrepresentations was already underway in the United States.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the alleged statutory tort was committed in Ontario where disclosure documents were required to reach Ontario shareholders.

However, applying comity-based forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded Ontario should decline jurisdiction over foreign-exchange claims because the U.S. and U.K. regimes tie jurisdiction to the place of trading, parallel proceedings already existed, and Ontario jurisdiction would be opportunistic in light of negligible Canadian trading.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Royal Trust for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence regarding an option agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the option agreement was unambiguous and had become null and void after the sale of the business.

The Court also agreed that Royal Trust acted prudently in selling the estate assets and that summary judgment was appropriate under the Hryniak framework.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from selling an independent medical examinations business to a competitor.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant breached a contractual duty of good faith by failing to negotiate a sale with them and by not offering a right to match the competitor's offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the defendant had fulfilled its limited obligation to offer a first right of negotiation and was not required to provide a right to match.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The appellant, Inco Limited, appealed a costs order awarding it $1,766,000 following its successful defence of a class action at the Court of Appeal.

Inco argued it was entitled to over $5.3 million and that the trial judge erred by reducing its legal fees and applying a 50 per cent discount under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's determination that the environmental tort class action raised novel points of law and involved matters of public interest.

The court upheld the trial judge's methodical and reasonable costs analysis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a class action and approval of a settlement agreement regarding the defendant's sale of daily deal vouchers with allegedly illegal expiration dates.

The court found that the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act were met and that the settlement, which established a $535,000 fund, was fair and reasonable.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $235,000, noting that while pre-allocated fees require strict scrutiny, the amount was justified given the significant non-monetary value of the settlement to the class.