Melanie Baird

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,522.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision that SPRAVATO (esketamine hydrochloride) was not an "innovative drug" under the Food and Drug Regulations and thus not entitled to data protection.

The applicant argued the definition should be reinterpreted in light of CUSMA.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister reasonably interpreted the Regulations, which expressly exclude enantiomers of previously approved drugs.

The Court also upheld the Minister's finding that data protection eligibility is appropriately determined at the time a Notice of Compliance is issued.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

Upon reconsideration as directed by the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court upheld the validity of the 630 Patent concerning the co-administration of infliximab and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

The Court concluded that the 1994 Kennedy Report and the Higgins publication did not anticipate the invention as they lacked full disclosure of the essential elements and did not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.

The Court further found that the invention was neither obvious nor obvious to try in light of the prior art, including the FDA Workshop, affirming the original trial decision.

The Buyer (Mt.

Pleasant Roehampton Developments Limited) brought an application seeking a declaration that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) was in full force and an order for specific performance.

The Vendor (Friedrich Christof Haussmann) brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that the APS was null and void and removal of a caution registered against title.

The central dispute concerned the interpretation of the "Investigation Period" deadline in the APS, with the Buyer arguing for March 31, 2017, and the Vendor for March 29, 2017.

The court found the plain wording of the APS established the deadline as March 29, 2017, and that the Buyer failed to waive conditions by that date, rendering the APS null and void.

The Buyer's alternative arguments of estoppel by convention and mutual mistake were rejected due to a lack of shared assumption or clear misrepresentation.

The appellant, MasterCard, sought to stay an Ontario action brought by the respondent, Aldo, on the basis of a New York forum selection clause contained in agreements to which Aldo was not a party.

Aldo's claims arose from a cybercrime attack and subsequent data security assessments imposed by MasterCard and collected by Moneris.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision dismissing the stay, finding that Aldo's claims were direct tort claims rather than subrogated contractual claims.

The Court declined to apply the 'closely related' doctrine to bind Aldo to the forum selection clause, as it was not foreseeable that the clause would apply to its claims.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for damages pursuant to s. 130 of the Securities Act.

The defendants consented to certification, except for the plaintiff's proposed class definition which included purchasers in the secondary market.

The court held that s. 130(1) of the Act does not provide a statutory cause of action to purchasers in the secondary market, and revised the class definition accordingly before granting certification.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's putative class action regarding a leveraged charitable donation program, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged he relied on the defendants' tax opinions to participate in the program, which the CRA later disallowed.

The court dismissed the motions, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff discovered his claim, particularly given the ongoing solicitor-client relationship with the defendant law firm that was representing him against the CRA while potentially in a conflict of interest.