Megan B. McPhee

The defendants sought leave to appeal a partial indemnity costs award of $650,000 granted to the plaintiffs following a lengthy and aggressively fought class action certification motion regarding allegedly defective pacemakers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order, noting that the defendants' aggressive approach significantly drove up the plaintiffs' costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the case management judge, who directed that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification be heard prior to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the case management judge's discretionary decision regarding the timing of procedural motions.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying the action as a class proceeding regarding allegedly defective heart devices.

The defendants argued the motions judge misconstrued the 'some basis in fact' standard and that the class definition was overly inclusive.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the evidentiary principles from Hollick v. Toronto and made factual findings entitled to deference.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

The plaintiffs, a special needs child and his mother, brought a proposed class action against Ontario for negligence and misfeasance in public office, alleging the government unlawfully terminated special needs agreements under section 30 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action.

The court found that the statutory discretion to enter into voluntary agreements did not create a private law duty of care, and the plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts demonstrating intentional wrongdoing by a public officer required for misfeasance in public office.

The appeal was allowed and the certification order was set aside.

The plaintiffs sued Ontario in negligence, alleging the province failed to prevent the outbreak of West Nile Virus in 2002, resulting in the deceased contracting the virus and dying from complications.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The motions judge and Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the claim, holding that the Health Protection and Promotion Act imposes a general public law duty to protect health, but does not create a private law duty of care owed to specific individuals to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the provincial government in negligence after the deceased contracted West Nile Virus, alleging the government failed to reasonably implement its prevention plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail, as the relevant public health legislation conferred sufficient powers on the government to potentially ground a private law duty of care at the operational level.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government.

The action alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office arising from the government's decision to discontinue entering into Special Needs Agreements for profoundly disabled children.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding it was plain and obvious the negligence claim could not succeed.

The court held that the statement of claim disclosed arguable causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the provincial government was negligent in failing to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions regarding the threshold test for establishing a duty of care for public authorities and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

A stay of the order was also granted pending the appeal.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed documentary evidence of membership for approximately 77% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures of six employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

Subsequently, all six of these employees signed a revocation document reaffirming their support for the union.

The Board assessed the voluntariness of the petition and the revocation document.

Finding the revocation document to be a bona fide statement of the employees' wishes, the Board accepted it, leaving the union with more than 55% support.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant without ordering a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a representation vote should have been ordered due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the voluntariness of the revocations.