Matthew W. Taylor

The plaintiffs, representing a class of donors to a failed charitable tax shelter program, brought an action for professional negligence against the law firms and valuation firm that provided services to the program's promoter.

The professional defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and that they owed no duty of care to the non-client class members.

The court held the claims were not statute-barred, as the limitation period did not begin to run until the Tax Court declared the program a sham.

The court granted summary judgment to the law firms, finding they explicitly limited their undertakings to their client and owed no duty of care to the class members.

However, the court denied summary judgment to the valuation firm, finding a triable issue existed regarding whether it undertook a duty to the class members by authorizing its valuation report to be used in their tax appeals.

The plaintiff in a proposed securities class action sought approval of a third-party funding agreement (After-the-Event insurance) under s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff in a parallel British Columbia class action sought to intervene to oppose the funding, arguing the B.C. action was self-funded and therefore cheaper.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, noting the B.C. action was languishing and there was no evidence it would actually be cheaper.

The court approved the funding agreement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, as it did not diminish the plaintiff's control over the litigation and the insurers were financially capable.

Costs of the intervention motion were awarded to the plaintiff against the proposed intervenor.

The plaintiffs commenced an action and sought urgent injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of notices of sale by the defendants.

The court granted an interim injunction preventing further steps in enforcing notices of sale against the named plaintiffs, finding the uncontradicted evidence justified the order.

The plaintiffs' requests for disclosure of other affected mortgagors and restrictions on future notices of sale, based on allegations of systemic conduct, were deferred to a return date to allow the defendants time to retain counsel and respond.

The decision addresses motions for a representative order and for an interlocutory injunction in the context of the de-rostering of patients from a community health centre in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The plaintiff, Michael Da Prat, sought to represent both subscribers and non-subscribers of the Group Health Centre, challenging the de-rostering as a breach of contract, a violation of the Human Rights Code, and as oppressive conduct under corporate statutes.

The court granted a representative order only for the breach of contract claim on behalf of subscribers, denied it for other claims and for non-subscribers, and refused the interlocutory injunction, finding no strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a class action, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding leave to pursue claims against Barrick Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations under the Ontario Securities Act.

The appeal concerned the denial of leave for certain misrepresentation allegations related to Barrick's capital expenditure budget and production schedule, and the identification of public correction dates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that there was no reasonable possibility of success for the additional misrepresentation claims and that the earlier public disclosure fully corrected the alleged misrepresentations, thereby limiting the class period.

Following a successful motion to certify a class action regarding psychiatric treatment at the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, the plaintiffs sought costs of $713,798.85 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Crown defendants opposed the quantum, arguing the fees were unreasonable and should be reduced by at least 50% or made payable in the cause.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, noting they failed to provide their own bill of costs for comparison.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $675,000 all-inclusive, payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario regarding the psychiatric treatment of patients detained in the PST Unit of the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital between 1976 and 1992.

The plaintiffs alleged that the 'PST Program' was an experimental, abusive therapeutic community that improperly delegated treatment and punishment decisions to 'patient-teachers', resulting in physical and psychological harm.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and breaches of sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

However, the court narrowed the common issues, certifying questions related to systemic negligence, fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, and limitation periods, while directing that Charter breaches, causation, and damages must be determined at individual issues trials.

The court concluded that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to advance the claims of the highly marginalized class members.

The appellant, Payman Khanlari, appealed a summary judgment order that found him liable for unjust enrichment.

He argued that he was treated unfairly as a self-represented litigant and that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment due to credibility issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding unfair treatment, noting the appellant's familiarity with legal proceedings.

However, the court found that the motion judge erred in quantifying the unjust enrichment by not accounting for payments admittedly made by the appellant to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed to vary the judgment amount.

In a class action seeking certification against the Crown and two psychiatrists (Defendant Doctors) regarding treatment in a psychiatric hospital program, the plaintiffs moved for a partial discontinuance of the action against the Defendant Doctors.

The court granted the discontinuance, finding it to be in the best interests of the putative Class Members.

The decision was based on the lack of additional recovery from the doctors, the streamlining of the claim, the doctors' later involvement in the program, and their agreement to provide de bene esse examinations to preserve evidence.

The court confirmed that the discontinuance was not for an improper purpose and did not prejudice the class members or the co-defendant Crown, as the doctors' evidence remained available.

The plaintiffs' counsel, Rochon Genova LLP, sought an order to retain costs awarded by various courts, including post-judgment interest, as part of their contingency fee agreement.

The total amount of costs sought was over $5.6 million, bringing their total compensation to over $7.4 million.

The defendants took no position as the costs had already been paid.

The court approved the request, finding the contingency fee agreements fair and reasonable given the exceptional circumstances, high risk, complexity, and two-decade duration of the litigation, which involved novel claims and a protracted procedural history.

The court confirmed the request complied with section 28.1(8) of the Solicitors Act, noting no excessive fees or 'double-dipping.'

This decision addresses a costs motion following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $300,000 USD (converted to $406,960 CAD) against one defendant for a loan repayment, while the action against the co-defendant (guarantor) was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs on a mixed partial and substantial indemnity basis, totaling $151,623.41, arguing that a Rule 49 settlement offer was served and the defendant's resistance was "tough." The court reviewed the unopposed costs submissions and detailed Bill of Costs, finding the claimed costs reasonable and necessarily expended, particularly given the self-represented defendant's sophisticated and challenging conduct.

The court granted the costs as requested.

The plaintiffs brought a class action against mutual fund managers for allowing certain investors to engage in frequent short-term trading (market timing/time zone arbitrage), which allegedly diluted the returns of long-term unitholders.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to the funds and breached the standard of care by failing to prevent, and actively facilitating, frequent short-term trading contrary to their prospectuses.

However, the court dismissed the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding no bad faith or dishonesty.

The matter was directed to proceed to a damages trial.

This is a costs endorsement following complex grouped appeals and a cross-appeal concerning claims by 28 former residents of the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre against His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and two physicians.

The Court of Appeal had largely upheld the trial judge's findings on liability for breach of fiduciary duty and battery, with minor reductions in damages.

The appellants sought a significant reduction in the respondents' costs for the appeal and a reduction in the trial costs.

The court awarded the respondents the full amount of their claimed appeal costs, finding that despite mixed success, the trial judgment remained largely intact and the costs claimed were reasonable given the complexity.

The court also declined to vary the trial costs, deeming the overturned $1,000 judgment a minor part of the overall proceedings.

The respondents were involuntarily admitted to a maximum-security psychiatric facility between 1966 and 1983, where they were subjected to experimental and abusive treatment programs, including mind-altering drugs and severe solitary confinement.

The trial judge found the province and the treating physicians liable for breach of fiduciary duty, battery, and assault, awarding substantial general and punitive damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of breach of fiduciary duty and battery for certain respondents, but reversed the findings of assault and battery for others due to a lack of direct physical interference or imminent threat.

The Court rejected defences based on Crown immunity and historic limitation periods, and largely upheld the damages awards, including those exceeding the Andrews cap, while making specific adjustments for individual respondents.

In a supplementary decision on a motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action, the court considered whether certain disclosures constituted public corrections of alleged misrepresentations made by the defendants in February and March 2012 regarding a mining project's capital expenditure budget and schedule.

The court found a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs could prove the July 2012 disclosure was a partial public correction, but rejected subsequent disclosures in November 2012 and April 2013 as public corrections.

Leave was granted to proceed with the misrepresentation claims against the corporate defendant and two individual certifying officers.

The plaintiffs sought leave under the Securities Act to commence a class action against Barrick Gold Corporation and certain officers/directors for alleged misrepresentations in public disclosures concerning the Pascua-Lama mining project.

The court dismissed most of the alleged misrepresentations due to a lack of precision in pleading and insufficient credible evidence, particularly regarding accounting and contingent liability claims, and October 2011, May 2012, November 2012, and March 2013 capex/scheduling claims.

However, the court found a reasonable possibility of success for certain capex budget and scheduling misrepresentations made in February and March 2012, but required further submissions on the issue of public correction for these.

Claims against two individual defendants were dismissed due to their tenure or lack of evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a class action regarding alleged systemic abuse at a psychiatric facility from Toronto to Barrie.

The court applied a holistic approach to the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While Barrie had proximity to the facility and witnesses, the Regional Senior Justice noted that due to courtroom availability and backlog, a trial in Barrie might ultimately be moved elsewhere in the Central East Region.

The court concluded that Toronto's judicial resources and specialized class action judges would better ensure a just and expeditious determination.

The motion to transfer was dismissed.

Following a 71-day trial where the plaintiffs were awarded nearly $10 million in damages, the plaintiffs sought costs of approximately $8.5 million on a substantial indemnity basis or $5.3 million on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that substantial indemnity costs were unwarranted and that the partial indemnity claim included costs for interlocutory matters already decided.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the defendants to justify an elevated scale of costs.

Applying the partial indemnity scale and deducting amounts attributable to prior interlocutory motions, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $4,900,000 all-inclusive.