Michael A. Eizenga

The plaintiff in a proposed medical device class action brought a motion to discontinue the action against one defendant, Sanofi S.A., without prejudice and without costs.

The plaintiff had learned that Sanofi S.A. acquired the shares of another defendant after that defendant had terminated its Canadian medical device licence, and Sanofi S.A. itself never held a licence.

The court granted the motion, finding the action against Sanofi S.A. appeared baseless and discontinuance would not prejudice putative class members.

Notice to the class was not required, provided notice was placed on class counsel's webpage.

Bennett Jones LLP brought an unopposed motion to be removed as lawyers of record for the Clover Leaf Defendants in a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy.

The Clover Leaf Defendants had filed for bankruptcy protection in the US and Canada, resulting in a stay of proceedings and the sale of their assets.

As the entities' interests are now governed by bankruptcy trustees who have their own counsel, Bennett Jones LLP could no longer represent them.

The court granted the motion, noting it would not cause prejudicial delay.

Two competing class counsel groups sought carriage of a proposed class action against the Province of Ontario regarding COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care homes.

The Nisbet Action proposed suing Ontario solely for its several liability to avoid third-party claims and expedite certification.

The Robertson Action proposed a conventional joint and several liability approach, expecting third-party claims between Ontario and long-term care operators.

The court granted carriage to the Robertson Action, finding that the several liability approach offered no early-stage advantage and would create significant disadvantages in later-stage litigation, including potential unfairness to the defendant and risks of unrecovered losses for class members.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Ottawa arising from a deadly bus accident at Westboro Station.

The proposed action was structured to plead systemic negligence in transit design and operation while avoiding claims against the city as the owner of the vehicle and employer of the driver.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as it ignored readily available compensation under the motor vehicle insurance regime and numerous individual actions had already been commenced.

The defendants brought motions across five Canadian jurisdictions to address overlapping multijurisdictional class actions regarding a data breach.

The parties reached a settlement to proceed only with the Ontario national class action and stay the actions in British Columbia, Alberta, Québec, and Nova Scotia.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the consent order dismissing the stay motion in Ontario, allowing the action to proceed subject to bi-annual reporting requirements to the case management judges in the other jurisdictions.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' proposed class action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totalling approximately $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued that the costs should be reduced to $600,000 in the aggregate, asserting that the case was not complex, was in the public interest, raised novel points of law, and that a large costs award would have a chilling effect on class actions.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the litigation was primarily commercial, involved complex issues, and that the normal costs rules should apply.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs, subject to a reduction of one expert witness's fee.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $2 billion class action regarding the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh, the successful defendants sought costs totaling over $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued for no costs, asserting the case was novel and brought in the public interest.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the claims were grounded in established negligence principles and prosecuted aggressively with an expectation of costs.

The court awarded the defendants their claimed costs in full on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs, victims of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Loblaws (who sourced garments from the factory) and Bureau Veritas (who conducted social audits).

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21, arguing the claims were governed by Bangladesh law, were statute-barred, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction simpliciter, the claims were governed by Bangladesh law under the lex loci delicti rule and were statute-barred by a one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court found that under both Bangladesh and Ontario law, it was plain and obvious that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, nor was Loblaws vicariously liable or in breach of any fiduciary duty.

The action and the certification motion were dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding beer pricing and market allocation in Ontario sought leave under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act to discontinue the action against the LCBO and treat it as an unnamed co-conspirator.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the discontinuance should occur, if at all, only after the close of pleadings, as the remaining defendants had not yet filed statements of defence and might assert cross-claims or third-party claims against the LCBO.

The court also found the evidentiary record inadequate to justify discontinuance.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a products liability class action against the defendants regarding pelvic mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while the plaintiffs satisfied the cause of action, identifiable class, and representative plaintiff criteria, they failed to establish some-basis-in-fact for the commonality and preferable procedure criteria due to the multifarious nature of the 19 different products involved.

The dismissal was made subject to an 'Alternatives Motion' to allow the plaintiffs to propose continuing the proceeding in an altered form.

Following certification of a pension-related class proceeding, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $210,000 for the certification motion.

The defendants conceded entitlement to costs but argued the claimed amount was excessive and opposed joint and several liability.

Applying the principles governing certification motion costs, including those articulated in Pearson v. Inco Ltd., the court determined that the plaintiff’s claimed costs were somewhat excessive and unsupported in part.

The court fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs at $175,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendants were not held jointly and severally liable; instead, four groups of defendants were ordered to each pay an equal share.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of members of the Eastern Canada Car Carriers Pension Plan against the plan's trustees, administrative agent, and actuaries.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently or in breach of trust granted early retirement benefits when the plan had ongoing solvency issues, leading to a reduction in benefits for plan members.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence and breach of trust, the class was identifiable, there were common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.

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.