Mark A. Gelowitz

This is a continued certification motion in a class action alleging that the defendant misused class members' data by making it available to third parties without consent.

The court declined to certify the proceeding on multiple grounds: the proposed class definition was not workable, as it required individual inquiries to develop a Master Class List and was both under-inclusive and over-inclusive; the nominal damages issue could not be certified as a common issue because individual issues were woven into its determination; the proceeding was not the preferable procedure given the absence of evidence of compensable loss and the availability of regulatory proceedings; and the litigation plan was unworkable given the size of the class and the numerous individual inquiries required.

The defendant was awarded costs of $500,000 all-inclusive.

The representative plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of Ontario franchisees, sought production of documents from the defendants (Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Shoppers Drug Mart (London) Ltd.) to support a “bottom-up” damages assessment for individual class members under section 25 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal had previously found Shoppers liable for breach of contract and duty of good faith, and ordered that damages be determined through an individual issues process.

The defendants opposed production on grounds of proportionality, prematurity, and lack of expert evidence.

Justice Glustein granted the motion, ordering production of the requested documents for all class members subject to the 2002 Associate Agreement for the relevant years, finding the request reasonable and proportionate in light of the litigation’s scope and the evidence before the court.

The appellants, representing a class of Ontario Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees, appealed a summary judgment decision regarding their entitlement to Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that Shoppers breached the 2002 franchise agreement by retaining the allowances, which constituted 'revenue', but did not breach the 2010 agreement, which explicitly allowed Shoppers to retain such concessions.

The Court also upheld the application of a rolling limitation period and the refusal to award aggregate damages due to the idiosyncratic nature of the profit-sharing model.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantification of damages, finding that Shoppers breached its duty of good faith by arbitrarily allocating $129 million as out-of-province rebates to avoid sharing the funds with Ontario franchisees, bringing the total Professional Allowances received to $1.084 billion.

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 in a certified class action brought a motion seeking an order to provide official notice to class members regarding the outcome of common issues summary judgment motions, despite pending appeals and cross-appeals.

The defendants objected, arguing that such notice would confuse class members and disputed the sharing of information and costs.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that providing notice was necessary to protect the interests of the class members and that the defendants' concerns about confusion were unfounded.

The court emphasized the fiduciary responsibility of class counsel to report to class members throughout the litigation.

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 individual defendants, comprising management and major label directors of Re:Sound, brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike oppression claims asserted against them personally by ACTRA Performers’ Rights Society (ACTRA PRS).

ACTRA PRS alleged that the individual defendants, through their actions and inactions, caused Re:Sound to unfairly compete with ACTRA PRS, fail to adopt proper fee policies, neglect technological enhancements for equitable royalty distribution, and inadequately enforce tariffs, all for personal gain or to benefit their nominating organizations.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the oppression claims were sufficiently pleaded, not plain and obvious to fail, and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The court applied the two-prong test for personal liability in oppression claims, concluding that the defendants were sufficiently implicated in the alleged oppressive conduct and that personal liability could be a fit remedy.

In this certified class action, the plaintiff franchisees (Associates) brought a motion for summary judgment against the franchisor, Shoppers Drug Mart, alleging breaches of contract, breaches of the duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment regarding various fees and the retention of Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

Shoppers brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, arguing they lacked merit and were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the Optimum Fee and Shoppers Charges, finding no breach of contract or bad faith.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim for Professional Allowances but found that Shoppers breached the 2002 Associates Agreement (but not the 2010 Agreement) by failing to remit Professional Allowances to the Associates.

The court held that aggregate damages were not viable and directed that the surviving breach of contract and distribution centre claims proceed to individual issues trials, subject to limitation periods.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision on costs, which had awarded partial indemnity costs of $450,000 to Pembina Pipeline Corp. and $500,000 to BluEarth Renewables Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's costs award was a discretionary decision entitled to deference.

The court concluded that there was no error in principle and the award was not plainly wrong, as the motion judge had properly considered factors such as the respondents' success, the complexity of the proceeding, the amounts at stake, and the conduct of the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion in writing to approve the dismissal of a putative class proceeding against Facebook and Google on a without costs basis.

The action alleged that Facebook scraped call and text logs from users of the Messenger app on Android devices.

Following the denial of certification in a parallel British Columbia action, the representative plaintiffs no longer wished to proceed due to the risk of adverse costs.

The court approved the dismissal, finding it was not brought for an improper purpose, no private benefit was received to the detriment of class members, and notice to the class was unnecessary.

The appellants, Greta Energy Inc. and Great Grand Valley 2 Limited Partnership, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against Pembina Pipeline Corporation and BluEarth Renewables Inc. The case involved the sale of bundled assets, some subject to Rights of First Refusal (ROFRs).

The appellants alleged that the respondents manipulated asset prices in bad faith to prevent the exercise of ROFRs, breaching duties of good faith and honest performance, inducing breach of contract, and conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the respondents did not breach their duty of good faith, did not owe a fiduciary duty, did not conspire, and did not induce breach of contract, as their actions were commercially reasonable and not intended to "eviscerate" the ROFRs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, First Data Canada Ltd. ("FD"), brought a motion for leave to amend its Third Party Claim against Vantiv Integrated Payments entities ("Vantiv").

The proposed amendments included new allegations regarding Vantiv's use of an incorrect merchant ID number and an alleged agency relationship between the plaintiff and Vantiv.

Vantiv opposed, arguing the amendments introduced new, statute-barred causes of action.

The court applied the principles for amending pleadings, emphasizing a generous, factually-oriented approach.

It found that the proposed amendments were additional facts supporting the original negligence claim and part of the same factual matrix, rather than new causes of action, even if some allegations were inconsistent with the original claim.

Leave was granted in part, allowing the amendments related to the merchant ID and agency, but requiring FD to address inconsistent allegations.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

The applicant, Joshua Dean Nelson, sought to set aside an arbitral award rendered under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement against the Government of the United Mexican States.

The application was brought under Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, alleging denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Specifically, the applicant claimed the award was based on an unpleaded theory and that the tribunal ignored expert evidence regarding the existence of interconnection rights and the effect of Mexican regulatory decisions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decision was based on issues that were pleaded, argued, and subject to cross-examination, and that the tribunal adequately considered the expert evidence, even if not explicitly naming the experts.

This is a costs endorsement following successful summary judgment motions by the defendants.

The court determined the scale and amount of costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on their offers to settle, which proposed dismissal of the action without costs.

The court found that such offers, while relevant, do not automatically attract substantial indemnity costs, and awarded partial indemnity costs, considering factors like success, complexity, amounts at stake, and litigation conduct.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The plaintiff moved to certify a class action against Facebook alleging that the personal data of Canadian users was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.

The court dismissed the certification motion because the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that Canadian users' data was actually shared with Cambridge Analytica.

The plaintiff's attempts to shift the focus to the unauthorized access by the third-party app developer were precluded by a prior carriage order that granted those claims to a different class action.

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.

In a certified class action by franchisees against Shoppers Drug Mart regarding the retention of professional allowances, the plaintiffs brought a discovery motion seeking to compel answers to refused questions, to examine three non-party former employees, and to obtain documentary production from two non-party generic drug manufacturers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had already provided sufficient information to allow the plaintiffs to argue their case, and that further discovery would be irrelevant and disproportionate.

The court ordered a limited search for documents related to 'over and above' amounts but otherwise denied the relief sought.