Mark A. Gelowitz

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 appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out portions of their statements of defence.

The impugned pleadings referred to documents and communications from a judicial mediation, which the motion judge found were prima facie protected by settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court affirmed that the respondents had not waived settlement privilege and that the justice of the case did not require an exception to allow the appellants to plead the privileged information to defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims.

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.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and certification of a class proceeding against Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and its officers.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to disclose a material tax liability arising from a CRA audit regarding transfer pricing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial because the plaintiff's expert evidence was inadmissible or unreliable, and the defendants' disclosures accurately reflected management's reasonable assessment of the tax risk.

The court also declined to certify the common law and prospectus misrepresentation claims, finding a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure and the claims did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs, who held a right of first refusal (ROFR) over certain wind farm assets, sued the vendor and the third-party purchaser, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate the purchase price allocation of the ROFR assets to discourage the plaintiffs from exercising their rights.

The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of the duty of good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the vendor acted in good faith and the purchaser was entitled to act in its own commercial self-interest.

The court held that a difference in valuation or a strategic bid allocation does not, without more, constitute a breach of the duty of good faith or an intent to eviscerate the ROFR.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decision of Cavanagh J. dated August 26, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the agreed amount of $20,000 payable by the responding parties.

A case management teleconference was scheduled to settle a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and to schedule an expedited appeal date.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.

The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.

The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.

The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.

Following the dismissal of the defendant insurers' motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions pending the determination of certification in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs requested $86,589, which the court found excessive for a relatively simple stay motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) and considering proportionality, the court fixed costs at $35,000 all-inclusive, payable by the defendant insurers.

The plaintiffs sued their former insurer, Economical, and a related foundation, claiming entitlement to demutualization benefits after Economical declined to renew their home insurance policy due to their claims history.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs were not eligible policyholders on the crystallization date for demutualization benefits.

The court also held that Economical had no duty to warn the plaintiffs about its internal underwriting guidelines or to renew the policy, and that the claim was statute-barred as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The defendant insurers brought a motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions for COVID-19 business interruption losses pending the certification of a related class action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was overlap in issues and facts, staying the individual actions would cause significant injustice and prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had legitimate reasons for pursuing their claims individually and expeditiously.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, sought leave to amend their respective statements of claim in two related actions concerning the management of the Stronach family business and trusts.

The defendants, including Belinda Stronach, opposed the amendments on several grounds, primarily arguing that references to a May 2020 Agreement were barred by settlement privilege.

The court found that the defendants failed to prove the May 2020 Agreement was intended to be kept confidential, and alternatively, that any privilege had been waived or an exception applied.

The court also rejected arguments that the amendments improperly withdrew admissions or were scandalous and vexatious.

Leave to amend the pleadings was granted.

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.

The appellant objected to their civil appeal proceeding in writing, arguing the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to order a written hearing over a party's objection, contrary to the *Courts of Justice Act* and *Rules of Civil Procedure*.

The court, through a Case Management Judge, dismissed the objection, affirming its broad implicit jurisdiction to manage its own process and ensure the just and efficient administration of justice, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that neither the Act nor the Rules mandate an absolute right to an oral hearing and found the appeal suitable for a written disposition.