Lesley Mercer

In this certified class action concerning business interruption insurance claims related to COVID-19 and civil authority orders, the plaintiffs moved on consent for approval of a Notice of Proposed Settlement and a Pre-Approval Notice Plan.

The court approved the notice and plan, finding them informative and consistent with the prior successful certification notice program.

The court also ordered that the action be treated as a Class Proceedings matter despite retaining a Commercial List file number.

The plaintiffs in this certified class action moved on consent for approval of a Notice of Proposed Settlement and a Pre-Approval Notice Plan.

The court found the proposed Notice appropriately informative and the pre-approval plan for dissemination consistent with the successful certification notice program.

The motion was granted, and the Notice of Proposed Settlement and the Pre-approval Notice Plan were approved.

The foreign representative of a Chapter 11 debtor group brought a motion for recognition in Canada of a US Bankruptcy Court confirmation order approving a reorganization plan.

The motion was unopposed.

A group of co-defendants in Canadian opioid litigation sought a bar order (Pierringer-type protection) as a term of the recognition order, which was opposed by a provincial government.

The court granted the recognition order, finding no public policy grounds under s. 61(2) of the CCAA to refuse recognition and that the new plan's consensual-only third-party releases were consistent with Canadian insolvency law.

The court declined to impose the bar order, distinguishing the applicable authorities and holding that the co-defendants' position arose from the plan's releases — not from a prior government stipulation — and that the co-defendants had already received bar order protection in a separate settlement.

In a certified class proceeding arising from alleged COVID-19 business interruption coverage denials, the moving parties sought production of internal insurer documents relevant to common issues alleging breach of the duty of good faith and punitive damages.

The court held that the bad faith allegations had sufficient evidentiary foundation, particularly given the certification findings and evidence of an apparent blanket denial process, to move the request beyond a fishing expedition.

Internal materials concerning the insurer's corporate-level denial decision, adjuster communications, and reinsurer communications about a later pandemic exclusion were found relevant to contemporaneous decision-making and after-the-fact policy interpretation.

Production was ordered for categories (c), (d), and (e), but not for comparator materials concerning different insurance programs in category (f).

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, LoyaltyOne, Co. and its Monitor sought a declaration that a Tax Matters Agreement (TMA) was not binding or was void as a transfer at undervalue (TUV), and sought to disclaim the TMA to secure a $96 million tax refund.

Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. (formerly ADS) cross-moved to set aside the disclaimer, asserting its entitlement to the refund under the TMA.

The court ruled that LoyaltyOne was bound by the TMA, the TMA was not void as a TUV, and the disclaimer was not approved.

The court found it premature to determine the specific nature of Bread's rights to the refund.

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.

This case conference addressed the content and costs of the notice to be sent to class members following certification of a class action against an insurer.

The defendant insurer objected to the proposed notice content, which encouraged class members to submit claims, arguing it was improper advocacy.

The insurer also challenged the scope of notice distribution (to brokers and on its website) and sought to avoid notice costs.

The court approved the plaintiff's proposed notice content, finding it consistent with the insurer's own position on claim submission and the purpose of class notice.

The court denied the request for the insurer to post the notice on its website but ordered the insurer to provide policyholder and broker contact information.

The court further ordered that the costs of disseminating the notice, including administrator fees, be shared equally between the class and the insurer, citing the insurer's blanket denial of coverage as a factor.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal three orders of Morgan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $35,500.

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 Plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., was successful in a certification motion and related motions.

This endorsement addresses the costs for these motions, which involved two rounds of hearings due to a recusal by the initial judge.

The court determined the appropriate costs, considering the re-usable work from the first hearing and the work for the second hearing, ultimately awarding the Plaintiff $1,000,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

This case concerns a re-hearing of a certification motion for a class action against Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Aviva General Insurance Company, and Aviva Canada Inc. regarding business interruption insurance claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., sought to certify a class of businesses whose claims were denied or not submitted due to the defendants' alleged blanket denial policy.

The defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment against Nordik and a declaration concerning the tolling of the limitation period.

The court certified the class action, dismissed the defendants' summary judgment and limitation tolling motions, and allowed the addition of three new representative plaintiffs (Cash and Carry Inc., Hangar9 Studios Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.).

The decision addresses the adequacy of the representative plaintiff, the identifiable class, and the common issues, particularly regarding notice requirements and the interpretation of insurance policy clauses in the context of pandemic-related business closures.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.