Mirilyn Sharp

Following the dismissal of the applicants' insurance coverage application, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $100,000 based on a pre-hearing costs agreement, or alternatively $254,566.28 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued the agreement should not be enforced because the respondent's evolving position caused them to incur significant additional costs.

The court enforced the costs agreement, finding no breach or vitiating factors, and awarded the respondent $100,000 for the application plus $8,136 for the costs submissions.

The applicant restaurant chain sought a declaration of coverage under its commercial 'all risks' insurance policy for business interruption losses caused by government-mandated closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant argued that coverage was triggered under the policy's civil authority and ingress/egress extensions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the policy required 'direct physical loss or damage' to trigger coverage.

The court held that the COVID-19 virus and the resulting government orders did not cause direct physical loss or damage to the insured's property, and therefore the losses did not fall within the policy's coverage.

A case conference was convened at the request of a class member and a defendant to address concerns regarding the distribution of settlement funds in a class action.

The class member raised concerns about an apparent double payment to the representative plaintiff, which the Administrator confirmed was a clerical error that had been reversed.

The defendant raised concerns about a discrepancy in class counsel fees, which the court clarified was due to the inclusion of HST in the final approved amount.

The court was satisfied that the settlement funds had been distributed correctly and no further adjustments were required.

Following a settlement approval in a class action, the plaintiff failed to pay a $5,000 costs award to the defendant, Canderm Pharma Inc., for six months.

The plaintiff argued the costs were payable only after settlement funds were distributed or a companion action was dismissed.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the delay unreasonable and the plaintiff's positions untenable.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the outstanding $5,000 forthwith, plus an additional $5,000 in costs for the case conference required to enforce the original order.

The parties attended a case conference to settle the terms of the orders approving a class action settlement and distribution protocol.

The court approved the draft orders with minor modifications, including pluralizing references to the Canderm defendants and adjusting the notice period.

The court declined to award costs of the Ontario action to Canderm, noting the action was stayed due to the settlement with the other defendants.

The court also addressed concerns raised by a class member regarding the claims administrator's handling of her income loss claim, directing the administrator to be flexible and objective in assessing evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a proposed $250,000 settlement with the settling defendants in a class action concerning adverse reactions to a cosmetic injectable filler.

The court found the settlement amount modest but reasonable given the small class size and litigation risks, provided the maximum compensation for income loss was increased from $5,000 to $20,000.

Class counsel fees were approved with a $20,000 reduction.

The action against the non-settling defendant was permanently stayed in Ontario, and procedural protections were added to the bar order.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded against the plaintiff for late service of a factum.

The plaintiff brought a motion to finalize the terms of a certification order for settlement purposes and to set a timetable for a settlement approval hearing.

A non-settling defendant, Canderm Pharma Inc., objected to the form of the order, identifying several clerical errors.

The court agreed that the errors should be corrected before the order was issued, despite the plaintiff's concern about maintaining parallel language with a British Columbia order.

The court finalized the terms, set the timetable, and declined to award costs to any party.