Michael C. Smith

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 proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

The defendant insurer moved to stay a civil action brought by insured parties seeking payment under a marine insurance policy following a ship collision with a railway bridge.

The insurer relied on an arbitration clause governed by the International Commercial Arbitrations Act requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration in London.

The plaintiffs argued their claim instead enforced a settlement agreement allegedly reached with the insurer.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not establish a stand‑alone settlement agreement independent of the insurance policy and therefore the arbitration clause applied.

However, due to concerns that procedural preconditions in the insurer’s internal rules could delay access to arbitration, the court issued a temporary stay and directed steps to ensure the arbitration process could proceed.

In a long-running civil action arising from an arrest for criminal harassment and subsequent withdrawal of charges, the defendants sought relief relating to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with outstanding costs orders made during prior unsuccessful appeals and motions.

The self‑represented plaintiff had accumulated unpaid costs orders totalling over $6,000 and continued to advance pleadings that disregarded prior court directions limiting the scope of permissible claims.

The court held that litigants, including self‑represented parties, must comply with costs orders and procedural rules, and that ignoring such orders undermines fairness to opposing parties.

Exercising its authority under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court stayed the action until the outstanding costs were paid.

The plaintiff was also ordered to pay additional costs of the motion.

In a class proceeding concerning a college program that failed to deliver promised professional designations, the court issued an addendum addressing the residual market value of the diploma received by class members.

The court reconsidered supplementary submissions regarding whether the diploma had measurable value independent of the promised designations.

While the plaintiffs argued the diploma had little or no value and the defendant contended it retained full value, the court determined that the diploma had limited residual value based on evidence about employment outcomes, educational background of students, and survey data.

The court concluded that the residual value of the diploma was approximately 15% of the direct costs incurred by class members.

Aggregate damages were therefore fixed at 85% of the direct costs for students who completed the program.

The plaintiffs, former students of a post-graduate international business program, brought a class action against the defendant college.

The college's course calendar represented that the program provided the opportunity to complete three industry designations in addition to a graduate certificate.

The students discovered that the college had no agreements with the industry associations and could not confer the designations.

The court found that the college was negligent in making the misrepresentation and breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as the students were 'consumers' under the Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to monetary compensation, with damages to be determined in a subsequent phase.

The defendant brought a motion in a certified class proceeding to compel answers to refusals, undertakings, and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery of the representative plaintiffs.

The underlying action alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unfair practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 arising from statements in a college program calendar suggesting students could obtain certain industry designations.

The court reviewed the disputed discovery questions through the lens of proportionality and the principle that discovery before the common issues trial in a class action is generally limited to the certified common issues.

Many of the defendant’s requests were refused because they sought privileged communications, attempted discovery of class members, or addressed individual issues unrelated to the common issues.

Some limited answers were ordered where they would assist the defendant in understanding the case it must meet.