Linda M. Plumpton

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for long-term disability benefits on the basis that it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The defendant also moved to dismiss the action for late service of the statement of claim, while the plaintiff cross-moved to validate service.

The court validated the late service of the statement of claim, finding the delay was due to solicitor inadvertence during the COVID-19 pandemic and caused no prejudice.

The court also allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed despite the defendant not having filed a statement of defence, finding the plaintiff's prior counsel had implicitly consented to the procedure.

On the limitation period issue, the court held that the plaintiff's claim was discovered when she received the initial denial letter, which clearly stated the denial was final and explicitly warned of the limitation period.

The internal appeal process did not pause the limitation period.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The respondent, Sara Baker, suffered a stroke and was denied long-term disability benefits by the appellant, Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada.

A jury at trial found in favour of Baker, awarding retroactive benefits, aggravated damages, and $1.5 million in punitive damages, along with full indemnity costs.

Blue Cross appealed the punitive damages award and sought leave to appeal the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the punitive damages, finding ample evidence of Blue Cross's reckless indifference or deliberate strategy to deny benefits, and that the quantum was rationally connected to deterrence.

The Court granted leave to appeal costs but ultimately dismissed the costs appeal, upholding the full indemnity costs based on Blue Cross's misconduct and the respondent's settlement offer, correcting the trial judge's reasoning for the costs award.

The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.

The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.

The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce an "Outline of Terms of Settlement" reached during mediation, arguing it constituted a binding agreement.

The defendants contended that the Outline was not intended to be enforceable and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the Outline did not objectively reflect a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and that numerous material issues, including debt reallocation, minority shareholder rights, and tax implications of asset transfers, remained unresolved.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that it cannot create a contract for parties where essential terms are missing.

The moving party, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought two motions for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court regarding summary judgment and certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded agreed aggregate costs of $25,000 to the responding party.

Class counsel sought approval of a $44 million contingency fee following a $153 million settlement in an unpaid overtime class action against CIBC.

The court found the requested fee, representing 30% of the settlement, to be excessive and potentially champertous given the megafund nature of the settlement.

The court approved a reduced fee of $25 million (17% of the settlement), finding it provided fair compensation for the risks undertaken while protecting the integrity of the profession.

The court also denied the representative plaintiff's request for a $30,000 honorarium, finding her involvement was not extraordinary enough to justify the award.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and a representative plaintiff honorarium following the settlement of two national class proceedings (2012 and 2016 Actions) against various defendants, including Apple Inc., for an alleged eBook price-fixing conspiracy.

The aggregate settlement amount was $15,175,000.

Class Counsel sought $2.7 million in fees (25% of the Apple settlement, adjusted for Quebec) and $43,669.39 in disbursements, plus a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court addressed whether the Class Proceedings Act is a complete code for fee approval, the applicability of the Solicitors Act and its regulations regarding costs and disbursements in "all-in" settlements, and the treatment of notional cost contributions and administration costs.

The court found that the Solicitors Act provisions regarding costs and disbursements should apply harmoniously to class proceedings.

It ruled that disbursements should be deducted from the gross settlement amount, and a notional contribution to costs ($500,000) should be applied before calculating counsel fees.

Settlement administration costs were deemed not a disbursement incurred by counsel.

The court approved class counsel fees of $2,450,000 plus taxes, disbursements of $43,669.39 plus taxes, and an honorarium of $2,500 for the representative plaintiff.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action against Uber sought leave to amend their statement of claim and add a new common issue challenging the validity of Uber's amended arbitration clause and class action waiver.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it to be an abuse of process because the plaintiffs were attempting to re-litigate the validity of the arbitration clause for the fourth time.

Although the court found the newly pleaded cause of action was not statute-barred and satisfied the cause of action criterion, it held that the proposed common issue failed the common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria because it presupposed an employment relationship that had not yet been determined at the common issues trial.

This class action, alleging employee misclassification and breaches of provincial employment standards, settled for $2.4 million after almost eight years of litigation.

The court approved the settlement amount, class counsel's legal fees, payment to the Class Proceedings Fund, and the distribution method.

The representative plaintiff's requested honorarium of $20,000 was reduced to $8,000, as his involvement, while excellent, was not deemed "truly extraordinary" but did involve some personal and financial hardship.

The class period was also extended for settlement purposes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions sought leave to discontinue one action entirely and partially discontinue the second against all but one defendant group.

This procedural step aimed to streamline the proceedings by converting omnibus actions into separate class proceedings against distinct defendant groups.

The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court granted leave for both discontinuances, recognizing the efficiency gains.

The appellant, Robert Glegg, appealed judgments declaring him a vexatious litigant and associated costs orders.

The underlying litigation stemmed from his daughter's withdrawal from parental control, with Glegg initiating numerous proceedings, including tort claims against the respondents (family friends and a legal aid clinic with its lawyers), alleging they conspired to assist his daughter's mother in "brainwashing" her.

The application judge declared Glegg a vexatious litigant, stayed his existing proceedings, and barred him from commencing further related proceedings without leave, also ordering full indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Glegg's appeal, affirming that his claims were an abuse of process and a collateral attack on previously determined facts, specifically that his daughter acted of her own free will.

The court upheld the vexatious litigant declaration, the permanent stay of actions, the prohibition on future litigation without leave, and the full indemnity costs award.

At a case management conference in a certified class proceeding against Uber, the court considered whether to schedule the plaintiffs' proposed motions to amend their statement of claim and certify an additional common issue regarding an arbitration and class action waiver clause.

The defendants had already brought a motion to amend the class action notices.

Pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiffs' motions to be scheduled and heard together with the defendants' motion, and set a timetable for the delivery of materials and the hearing.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale after successfully certifying her action as a class proceeding and defeating the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued that costs should be reduced or not awarded because the plaintiff failed to obtain a reverse summary judgment and the class definition was narrowed.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful and awarded costs of $300,000 plus HST and disbursements, slightly reduced from the claimed amount to reflect the lack of success on the reverse summary judgment request.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The defendant, Sun Life, brought a motion for summary judgment in a class proceeding regarding the calculation of annual indexing increases on long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff argued for a reverse summary judgment.

The court found that the interpretation of the policy and the correct methodology to calculate the annual indexing of benefits where 'other income' is deducted raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court dismissed both the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's request for a reverse summary judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against Sun Life, alleging it incorrectly calculated long-term disability benefits by wrongfully deducting the inflation component from CPP and PSSA benefits.

Sun Life argued the plaintiff failed to meet the certification criteria.

The court found the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, though not for punitive damages.

The court amended the class definition to include a temporal limit based on the ultimate limitation period and certified the action, finding a class proceeding to be the preferable procedure.

The parties disputed the wording of a Certification Order in a class action regarding whether Uber drivers are employees.

The defendants requested the addition of the phrase 'to be calculated and assessed on an individual basis' to the paragraph describing the relief sought.

The court granted the request, finding that the phrase provided true and helpful information to the putative class members regarding the potential need for individual issues trials.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed disputes regarding the Notice of Certification and Notice Plan in a certified class proceeding against Uber.

The plaintiffs, representing drivers and delivery people seeking employee classification, proposed a notice plan.

Uber responded with alterations, including broader newspaper publication and inclusion of its defence commentary.

The court largely sided with Uber, approving a more robust, province-wide notice plan sensitive to language and diversity, and requiring the inclusion of Uber's legal position in the notices.

The court also apportioned the costs of newspaper notices 33% to the Plaintiffs and 67% to Uber.