Michael Saad

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The plaintiff commenced two actions (in 2018 and 2022) against the Crown and the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario containing overlapping allegations regarding the suspension of his firearms instructor license.

The defendants brought motions to strike or stay the 2022 Action.

The court struck the 2022 Action against the Crown for failure to provide statutory notice, struck the claims based on 2017 and 2018 events as statute-barred, and stayed the remaining duplicative claims as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the 2018 Action to incorporate the claims from the 2022 Action.

The self-represented plaintiff noted all defendants in default without providing prior notice of her intention to do so.

The defendants, comprising the Attorney General of Canada, municipal police, and other officials, moved to set aside the noting in default.

The court applied the factors from Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel and found that the defendants had always intended to defend the action, acted promptly upon learning of the default, and that the plaintiff's failure to provide notice deprived them of the opportunity to respond.

The court set aside the noting in default, allowing the claims to be determined on their merits.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to seal the entire court file in a civil action for wrongful arrest, arguing it was necessary to protect the integrity of an ongoing criminal proceeding.

The plaintiffs consented to sealing but sought additional terms, while the Toronto Star opposed the broad sealing order.

The court found that sealing the entire file was overly broad and violated the open court principle, ordering instead that only the unredacted amended statement of claim containing Stinchcombe disclosure be sealed.