Madeleine Claire Brown

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

The plaintiffs in this class proceeding moved to amend their statement of claim to add a new cause of action related to an "investment spread" and sought certification of a new common issue.

The defendant opposed, arguing the claim was time-barred and the amendment would fundamentally alter the certified action.

The defendant also moved to strike portions of the plaintiffs' expert report as irrelevant.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding the claim discoverable in 2016 and thus out of time, and that the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.

The court granted the defendant's motion to strike the expert report portions related to the investment spread and profitability, deeming them irrelevant to the certified common issues.

The plaintiff sought certification of a national class proceeding on behalf of Canadian corn growers alleging negligent premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed containing the MIR-162 trait before Chinese import approval was obtained.

The court held that the action satisfied the cause of action, common issues, preferability, and representative plaintiff requirements, and that there was some basis in fact for loss, causation, and a proposed aggregate damages methodology despite competing expert evidence.

The court rejected arguments that the class was unsupported for lack of proof of loss, that limitations issues defeated certification, and that individualized damages questions barred certification.

Certification was granted, subject to refinement of the class definition and amendment of one proposed common issue.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's jury notice and sought costs of $80,461.65 on a substantial indemnity basis or $61,175.38 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The court rejected the defendant's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in refusing to withdraw its jury notice despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the expectations of the parties, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $42,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's jury notice in an action arising from a tender process for the refurbishment of a nuclear reactor.

AECL argued the case was too complex for a jury, that a jury trial against a federal Crown agent is prohibited by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA), and that the plaintiff sought equitable relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that the factual and legal issues were too complex for a jury and that section 26 of the CLPA applies to AECL, prohibiting a jury trial.

The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was seeking equitable relief.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a permanent injunction and relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord had terminated the lease due to the tenant's failure to remedy a persistent mould issue that was affecting an adjacent unit.

The court found that the tenant had not acted diligently or in good faith to repair the issue despite numerous opportunities.

The court dismissed the application for an injunction, finding the tenant barely established a serious issue to be tried, failed to show irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture due to the tenant's poor conduct and failure to come to court with clean hands.