Megan B. McPhee

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 to bring a claim against the Ontario Ministry of Energy for misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and conspiracy.

The claims arose from the cancellation of the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) renewable energy program following the 2018 provincial election.

The plaintiffs alleged the Ministry unlawfully took instructions from the incoming government's transition team during the caretaker period to defer Notice to Proceed requests, thereby avoiding increased compensation payouts upon the program's eventual cancellation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable possibility that the claims would succeed, as the Ministry's actions in maintaining the status quo during the transition period were neither unlawful nor in bad faith.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge dated November 15, 2024.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding parties.

The appellants, representative plaintiffs in a certified class proceeding concerning universal life insurance policies, appealed the dismissal of their motion to amend their statement of claim and add a new common issue regarding an 'Investment Spread Claim'.

The motion judge refused the amendments on the basis that the claim was a new cause of action that was discoverable in 2016 and therefore statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the claim was not captured by existing pleadings, was discoverable based on a 2016 repricing report, and did not engage a rolling limitation period as it involved discrete decisions rather than periodic breaches.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a class action settlement agreement with the defendants, General Motors LLC and General Motors of Canada Limited, for $12 million to resolve claims related to alleged defects in automobile ignition switches.

They also sought approval of counsel fees of $4,397,500.

The court approved both the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the absence of objections, and the counsel fees, noting they were negotiated separately and represented a reasonable contingency fee.

This motion sought consent certification of a class action for settlement purposes and leave to discontinue certain causes of action related to defects in General Motors vehicles' ignition switches and other components.

The plaintiffs sought to certify economic loss claims while discontinuing claims for wrongful death, personal injury, and physical property damage.

The court granted the motion, finding that the discontinuance was appropriate as personal injury claimants were not prejudiced and could pursue individual claims or participate in a separate settlement scheme.

The court also found that the criteria for consent certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in a settlement context, and approved the proposed notice program and settlement administrator.

This appeal concerned a motion judge's order regarding a class action.

The core issues were whether a discontinued cause of action and defendants could be added to an existing class action (the Martin action) and whether that action would then be governed by the old Class Proceedings Act, 1992, or the amended Act.

The motion judge had ordered the "recast" Martin action to proceed under the amended Act and denied leave to add a party (MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) based on limitations.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in ordering the Martin action to be governed by the amended Act, as Section 39 of the amended Act clearly dictates that actions commenced before October 1, 2020, remain under the old Act.

The court also found an error in dismissing the motion to add MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. based on the Limitations Act, stating that limitation periods are typically individual issues in class actions.

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part, clarifying that the Martin action continues under the old Act, and a re-filed Rowland action (including MicroPort Orthopedics Inc.) would proceed under the amended Act.

This is a motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning automobile airbags that had been recalled.

The action, which had not been certified, sought compensation for pure economic loss.

Due to developments in case law, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification on pure economic loss for defective products, the litigation risk increased, and the prospects for certification and substantial economic recovery diminished.

Class Counsel sought leave to discontinue the action with prejudice and without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the test for discontinuance was satisfied, and putative class members were not prejudiced, as limitation periods remained suspended.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akbarali J. dated April 27, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The Plaintiffs, Anson Advisors Inc. and Moez Kassam, brought a motion for default judgment against Andrew Rudensky for defamation, seeking $500,000 in general damages and a permanent injunction.

Rudensky, who had been noted in default and had largely ignored the proceedings, appeared at the last minute to request an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the facts pleaded in the Amended Claim, deemed admitted by Rudensky's default, established the tort of defamation.

Considering the extensive and malicious nature of the online publications, the plaintiffs' professional standing, and the defendant's persistent and evasive conduct, the court awarded $450,000 in general damages and granted a permanent injunction to prevent further defamatory publications.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, addressed two issues in a case conference: a proposed motion by the defendants to amend their Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and a proposed anti-SLAPP motion.

The court granted leave to amend the pleading by consent.

However, the court declined to schedule the anti-SLAPP motion, finding it untimely given the action was nearly three years old and significant litigation steps had already occurred.

The court emphasized that anti-SLAPP motions are screening devices meant for early stages, not surrogates for summary judgment or trial, and that the evidence relied upon for timeliness was available much earlier.

The parties were directed to agree on a case management timetable to prepare for trial.

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 plaintiffs moved to amend the certification order in a class proceeding to restore the "Family Class", which had been inadvertently omitted from a revised certification order.

The defendant opposed, arguing issue estoppel and functus officio.

The Federal Court granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction under Rule 334.19 of the Federal Courts Rules to amend the order, the omission was inadvertent, and the doctrines of estoppel and functus officio did not apply to procedural certification orders that do not decide the merits.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding a request to vary a trial costs award.

Following a successful appeal and cross-appeal by the Respondents (plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim), they sought to vary the trial costs award, arguing entitlement to a higher scale due to beating a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The Appellants (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) opposed this request.

The Court declined to vary its decision, noting that the Respondents had not appealed or sought leave to appeal the trial costs, nor had they raised the issue in their notices of cross-appeal or in their submissions on costs.

The respondents were successful in resisting appeals by the Varma/Madra Appellants and the Palihapitiya Appellants, and succeeded on their cross-appeal.

They sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found no justification for a higher scale and awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $300,000, payable equally by the two groups of appellants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by two groups of appellants (Varma/Madra and Palihapitiya) and allowed a cross-appeal by the respondents.

The case involved corporate malfeasance, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, knowing assistance, and conspiracy related to the establishment of a competing fund (Annex Fund) and the undervalued sale of a technology company (Xtreme Labs), including the concealment of an equity interest in Hatch Labs (Tinder).

The trial judge's findings of liability for damages and disgorgement were largely upheld, and the disgorgement amount was increased on cross-appeal to serve a stronger deterrent purpose.

The court affirmed that directors of a corporate general partner can owe fiduciary duties directly to a limited partnership.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $15.5 million settlement in a class action concerning defective metal-on-metal hip implants.

The settlement provides compensation for class members who underwent premature revision surgery, medically precluded claimants, and family members with derivative claims.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it compares favourably to similar settlements in other jurisdictions.

The court also approved class counsel's 30% contingency fee and awarded $10,000 honoraria to the lead representative plaintiffs for their extensive contributions over 11 years of litigation.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of a $25 million settlement in two pharmaceutical class actions alleging that the diabetes drug PIO caused bladder cancer and that the defendants failed to warn of this risk.

The court initially raised concerns about the settlement amount compared to a $2.4 billion U.S. settlement, but approved it after class counsel provided evidence of recent scientific studies undermining causation and differences in market size and litigation risk.

The court also approved class counsel's 30% contingency fee and awarded a reduced honorarium of $1,500 to each representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class proceeding against the RCMP for the alleged inappropriate and sexualized conduct of Designated Physicians during mandatory medical examinations of applicants.

The Court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common questions, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.

This decision concerns a motion to certify a class proceeding arising from the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752.

The court granted certification of the action but made significant modifications to the proposed terms of the Certification Order, Notice of Certification, Litigation Plan, and Opt-out Form.

Key modifications included extending the opt-out period to align with the Montreal Convention limitation period, removing requirements for court approval for minors/incapable persons and estate representatives to opt out, and deleting a proposed anonymity provision.

The court also restricted the disclosure of telephone numbers for notice distribution.

The putative class counsel sought court approval to dismiss the proposed class action against the manufacturers of Accutane.

The representative plaintiff had previously withdrawn, and scientific consensus emerged that there was no causal link between Accutane and Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The court approved the dismissal without costs, noting the lack of a representative plaintiff and negligible chances of success.