Mirilyn R. Sharp

SIR Corp. appealed the dismissal of its application for insurance coverage for business losses and food spoilage incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic due to government-imposed in-person dining restrictions.

The appellant sought coverage under "Civil or Military Authority" and "Ingress/Egress" clauses of its "all-risk" property insurance policy with Aviva.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the policy required direct physical loss or damage for coverage, which the government orders did not cause.

It also held that "catastrophe" in the policy was limited to events similar to "conflagration" (large-scale physical destruction) and did not include the pandemic.

The court also denied leave to appeal the costs award, upholding the application judge's decision.

The appellant, a class member, sought an extension of time to opt out of a consolidated class action after commencing an individual action without knowledge of the class proceeding.

The motion judge denied the request.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario clarified and affirmed the test for extending the time to opt out: the class member must demonstrate excusable neglect for the delay and show that granting the extension will not result in prejudice to the class, the defendant, or the administration of justice.

The Court found the motion judge erred by not applying this test and by misinterpreting the appellant's evidence.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an extension to opt out, as he demonstrated excusable neglect and no prejudice was shown.

This motion concerned an application by The Class Action Clinic, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal brought by Donald Parker.

Parker's appeal challenged an unsuccessful motion for an extension of time to opt out of a class action against Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario, concerning medical care for inmates.

The Clinic sought to provide a framework for determining extensions of time to opt out of class actions.

The court granted the Clinic's motion to intervene, finding that the Clinic could make a useful contribution to the appeal's resolution without prejudicing the parties, given the unsettled legal considerations regarding opt-out extensions in class actions.

Donald Parker appealed a motion judge's refusal to extend his opt-out period from a class action and a related costs order.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario moved to quash Parker's appeal, arguing the motion judge's order was interlocutory and thus appealable only to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ontario's motion, holding that the motion judge's order was final because it effectively terminated Parker's individual civil action by denying his substantive right to opt out of the class proceeding.

The court emphasized the importance of opt-out rights as substantive rights.

The moving parties, who were inmates placed in administrative segregation after the opt-out deadline in a class action against Canada, brought a motion to opt out of the class action.

The motion became moot when the parties agreed to amend the class definition and provide a new opt-out period.

The moving parties sought costs for the unargued motion.

The court found that the motion was unnecessary because the moving parties were not class members to begin with, and ordered the costs of the motion to be in the cause of their external individual actions against Canada.

Donald Parker, a class member, appealed an order denying him an extension to opt out of a class proceeding.

He brought a motion seeking an extension of time to perfect his appeal and permission to include an affidavit from his counsel in the appeal book and compendium (ABC) regarding an unrecorded lower court hearing.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal and allowed the inclusion of the affidavit, finding it permissible under Rule 61.10(1)(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, while noting that the relevance of the affidavit would be determined by the appeal panel.

In a class proceeding arising from a major propane facility explosion, the plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim and certify claims against additional defendants associated with the ownership and leasing of the facility property.

The court considered whether the proposed amended pleading satisfied the s. 5(1)(a) requirement of the Class Proceedings Act by disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

Claims in strict liability and nuisance against the property-owning defendants were struck because the pleadings failed to meet the legal prerequisites and improperly characterized the alleged nuisance.

Negligence claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act were also dismissed because the alleged damages occurred off the premises and the statute only applies to persons entering the premises.

However, the court held that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded a viable common law negligence claim based on the defendants’ alleged rights of control and failure to intervene in unsafe operations.

Certification against the remaining defendants proceeded solely on the basis of the common law negligence cause of action.

In a certified class proceeding arising from explosions at a propane facility, class counsel moved for an order restraining an insurer and its counsel from communicating directly with class members during the court‑approved opt‑out period.

The insurer’s counsel had sent letters stating the insurer would opt insured class members out of the class action and pursue their claims through a subrogated action.

The court held the communications were misleading, interfered with the solicitor‑client relationship between class counsel and class members, and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court reaffirmed that insureds retain control of litigation until fully indemnified for both insured and uninsured losses.

An order was made prohibiting the insurer and its counsel from communicating with affected class members without court approval or consent of class counsel during the opt‑out period.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed class action arising from explosions at a propane facility in Toronto that allegedly caused personal injury, property damage, and evacuation of nearby residents.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

It held that the pleadings against certain landlord defendants failed to disclose a viable cause of action because the allegations relying on agency, single‑group enterprise, and alter‑ego theories lacked material facts capable of piercing the corporate veil.

Those pleadings were struck with leave to amend and the certification motion against those defendants was adjourned.

The proceeding was otherwise certified as a class action against the remaining defendants, with common issues approved and representative plaintiffs appointed.