Ruby Egit

During a case management conference, the applicant, BridgePoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I, argued that its application to determine whether its loan agreements with the respondent, Rudolf Steinberg, applied to his accident benefits settlement was moot.

BridgePoint contended that outstanding legal fees, which had priority, exceeded the funds held in court, leaving nothing for BridgePoint.

The court found that because a portion of the legal fees had already been paid, up to $184,983.13 might remain available, meaning the application was not moot.

Consequently, the court ordered that the application proceed to a hearing and directed that a related Toronto action be transferred to Thunder Bay to be case managed together.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against four major airlines, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and suppress the supply of transborder air travel between Canada and the United States.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as they contained only bald, unsupported allegations of a conspiracy without material facts.

The court also found no basis in fact for the proposed common issues, noting that the plaintiff's reliance on parallel U.S. litigation regarding domestic travel was insufficient to support a conspiracy in the transborder market.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's expert methodology for calculating class-wide loss was deemed purely hypothetical, and the representative plaintiff was found inadequate as she purchased her ticket using loyalty points rather than directly from the defendants.

The plaintiffs in a class action regarding syndicated mortgage loans moved for approval of the Notices and Notice Protocol for an upcoming certification and settlement approval hearing with certain settling defendants.

The court approved the proposed Notice Protocol, which involves direct notice to putative class members by email or mail via the court-appointed Notice Administrator, finding it to be effective and proportionate.

The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.

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

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

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 Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal by BridgePoint Financial Services, setting aside a motion judge's order that reduced interest payable on litigation loans obtained by Rudolf Steinberg.

The motion judge had found the loans not unconscionable but granted a "modest amount of relief" due to COVID-19 related delays.

The Court of Appeal held that once the loans were found not unconscionable under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, there was no legal basis to vary the interest.

It emphasized that courts cannot rewrite contracts or relieve parties from improvident bargains, and that COVID-19 delay, while "legitimate" did not justify reducing contractual interest.

The court also noted procedural unfairness as the basis for the reduction was not argued by the respondent.

This motion addressed the quantum of interest owing on litigation loans obtained by the plaintiff, Rudolph Steinberg, from BridgePoint Financial Services Limited.

The plaintiff argued the high interest rates were unconscionable and sought a cap on the interest.

The court found the loan agreements contractually sound, noting the plaintiff received legal advice and acknowledged the terms.

While largely rejecting the unconscionability argument, the court granted a reduction of $75,000 in accrued interest due to legitimate delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, balancing this against the plaintiff's own conduct which had exacerbated the accrual of interest.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by defendants seeking to hold litigation lenders liable for costs incurred by a class member (Mr. Zuber) who pursued an exaggerated damages claim and incurred substantial debt from litigation loans.

The trial judge had refused to order the lenders to pay costs, finding they did not instigate or control the litigation in a manner amounting to an abuse of process, despite the onerous interest rates and the loans impeding settlement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, reiterating that non-party costs are limited to "person of straw" or abuse of process scenarios, neither of which applied to the lenders' conduct.

The court also refused leave to cross-appeal the trial judge's decision not to award costs of the motion to the lenders, finding no error in principle.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a settlement agreement with the remaining bank defendants in a national class action alleging a conspiracy to fix credit card merchant discount fees.

A joint virtual hearing was held with judges from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement, adopting the reasons of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against five settling bank defendants in a long-running price-fixing conspiracy case regarding credit card merchant discount fees.

The court found that the five requirements for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied.

The court certified the action against the settling defendants for the purpose of implementing the settlement agreement and approved the notice and plan of dissemination.

The appellant City of Toronto appealed a trial judgment finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries sustained by the respondent when a glass door shattered at a community centre.

The trial judge found the City breached its duty of care because the door was made of annealed glass rather than the safety glass required by the Ontario Building Code.

On appeal, the City argued the trial judge improperly applied a strict liability standard rather than assessing whether the City took reasonable care to install the correct glass.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly decided the case based on the theories and issues expressly advanced by the parties at trial.

The plaintiff, Stuart Weinstein, sued multiple government entities and organizations after failing to obtain a General Condominium Manager license following a training program funded by the Second Career Strategy.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious, and also sought to quash summonses issued by the plaintiff.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts for his claims (breach of contract, negligence, intentional interference with economic relations, malfeasance in public office, breach of consumer protection laws) and that many allegations were an abuse of process.

The summonses were quashed as irrelevant and an abuse of process.

Leave to amend the claim was denied.

Stephanie Becker, a 14-year-old, was severely injured by shattering glass at a community centre.

She sued the City of Toronto for negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, alleging the glass in an office door was annealed glass, not the required tempered safety glass.

The court found the City breached its duty of care by installing annealed glass, which did not meet minimum building code standards.

The injury was found to be caused by this breach and was reasonably foreseeable given the public nature of the centre and minimal supervision.

Damages were settled, and the case proceeded on liability.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional order imposing sanctions against the respondent, who had entered into a settlement agreement with the Alberta Securities Commission admitting to insider trading.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Commission found that the threshold for a reciprocal order under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act was met and that it was in the public interest to issue a protective order.

The respondent was ordered to cease trading in securities or derivatives until February 10, 2022, subject to certain exceptions.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondents under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a prior decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondents perpetrated a fraud and engaged in unregistered trading.

The Commission found that the statutory threshold was met and that it was in the public interest to issue a reciprocal order to protect Ontario investors.

The Commission ordered permanent bans on trading, acquiring securities, and acting as a director or officer for the respondents.