25 total
Class action certification denied because plaintiffs showed no evidence of compensable harm after free vehicle repairs.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding an alleged emissions defeat device in certain diesel-engine vehicles.
The defendants had already initiated a recall to repair the defeat device at no cost, rendering the vehicles compliant with emissions regulations.
The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of compensable harm, such as paying a premium price or experiencing reduced fuel economy post-repair.
Without compensable harm, the court held that a class action would not advance the goals of access to justice, behaviour modification, or judicial economy.
Ice breaker settlement of $5.47 million and interim class counsel fees approved in gold and silver price-fixing class actions.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $5.47 million 'ice breaker' settlement with the Deutsche Bank defendants in two proposed class actions alleging price-fixing in the international gold and silver markets.
The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable despite the $1 billion damages claim, because the settlement amount was consistent with parallel U.S. settlements and the non-monetary cooperation from Deutsche Bank was of inestimable value.
The court also approved class counsel's request for an interim fee award of a 25% contingency fee plus disbursements, noting that such awards promote early settlement and lessen the financial burden on class counsel in complex conspiracy cases.
The court dismissed a purchaser's summary judgment motion for specific performance due to genuine issues requiring trial and overlapping third-party claims.
The plaintiff, Afroza Mary Mir, moved for summary judgment seeking specific performance or damages for the defendant Larry Gordon Brandt's alleged breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.
The defendant denied the binding nature of the agreement, citing mistake, undue influence, and non est factum, predicated on his vulnerability due to a brain injury, and alleging his real estate agent (third party Keller Williams Referred Urban Realty) acted without authorization.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to the complex factual and legal issues, particularly the defendant's cognitive health, the agent's authority, and the inescapable overlap between the main action and the derivative third-party claim, which raised concerns about partial summary judgment and the risk of inconsistent findings.
The court also granted the defendant's preliminary motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit and factum related to settlement privilege and inadmissible opinion evidence/new damages evidence.
The court granted the plaintiffs' pre-certification motion to add a dealership as a defendant, deferring prejudice arguments to the certification stage.
The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought a pre-certification pleadings motion to replace a representative plaintiff and add Scarsview Motors Ltd. as a defendant, intending to certify a defendant class of FCA dealers.
Scarsview resisted its addition, arguing prejudice and unsuitability as a representative.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding the causes of action against Scarsview properly pleaded and its addition necessary to preserve potential remedies related to implied warranties.
The court deferred Scarsview's affidavit evidence regarding prejudice and unsuitability to the certification stage, emphasizing that such issues are best addressed on a proper record at certification, not on a pleadings motion.
Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
Negligence Motion granted
The plaintiff, Eric Mezin, brought a motion for further particulars regarding the defendants' statements of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.
The plaintiff alleged bullying, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation leading to his termination.
The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) and Daniel Cayen, denied the allegations and asserted that the termination was justified due to performance issues.
The court, applying Rules 25.06 and 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the particulars sought were necessary to define the issues, enable the plaintiff to plead a meaningful reply, and facilitate preparation for discovery, especially given the time limits on examinations for discovery.
The motion was granted, and the defendants were ordered to provide the particulars.