Morag McGreevey

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of privacy, alleging the defendant accessed his personal information and created fake online profiles.

The defendant denied the allegations and brought a counterclaim for sexual battery, alleging the plaintiff penetrated him without a condom and without his consent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant accessed the information or created the profiles.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim, finding the plaintiff committed sexual battery by penetrating the defendant without a condom, and awarded $35,000 in damages.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's third iteration of a statement of claim.

The plaintiff alleged various causes of action including fraud, breach of contract, and negligence arising from his use of the defendant's order execution-only investment platform.

The court found the 124-page claim to be incomprehensible, devoid of material facts, and replete with evidence and legal maxims.

Concluding that the plaintiff was incapable of drafting a compliant pleading despite multiple opportunities, the court struck the claim without leave to amend and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff commenced a 468-page statement of claim against 38 defendants, alleging that her children's autism was caused by environmental toxins and acetaminophen, and seeking billions of dollars to fund a fecal microbiota transplant program.

A motion judge dismissed the claim against most defendants under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous and vexatious, but allowed the claims against the Bayer and Johnson defendants to proceed.

The Bayer and Johnson defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the plaintiff's lack of standing, the court's inability to order the requested research funding, and the numerous hallmarks of querulous litigation present in the claim.

The action was dismissed against the remaining defendants.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated October 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The issue of costs was left to the appeal panel.

The appellant reinsurer appealed a trial judgment ordering it to indemnify the respondent retrocedant for its share of a $140 million settlement reached by the lead insurer regarding a business interruption claim.

The appellant argued it was not bound by the 'follow settlements' clause in the retrocession agreement because it had not agreed to the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant was bound by the single proviso follow settlements clause, that the settlement arguably fell within coverage as a matter of law, and that the lead insurer took proper and businesslike steps in reaching the settlement.

The Bayer and Johnson & Johnson Defendants brought motions under Rule 59.06 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to amend or vary a previous order dated October 4, 2023, which had declined to dismiss the plaintiff's extensive claims under Rule 2.1.

The defendants argued that the prior decision contained errors or oversights, specifically regarding the omission of a Federal Court Statement of Claim and the court's comments on limitation periods.

The court dismissed both motions, reiterating that Rule 59.06 is intended for clerical or accidental errors in memorializing a decision, not for re-evaluating the reasoning itself.

The court clarified that its previous comments on limitation periods were not a final determination and did not preclude the defendants from raising such a defence at a later stage.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants, alleging that their glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The court analyzed the five certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

While the court struck the proposed causes of action for battery and unjust enrichment, it found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action in negligence and failure to warn.

The court approved the proposed class definition, certified several common issues including general causation and punitive damages, and concluded that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $8.9 million, the plaintiff sought costs of $3.49 million based on a Rule 49.10 offer.

The defendant argued the offer was not a true compromise and challenged the proportionality of costs and specific disbursements.

The court found the Rule 49.10 offer was a genuine compromise, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court allowed disbursements for fact witness preparation and e-discovery, but disallowed fees for an expert who did not testify.

Costs were fixed at $2.8 million.

The plaintiff, Wiener Städtische Versicherung AG (VIG), a reinsurer, sought to recover funds from the defendant, Infrassure Ltd., a retrocessionaire, under a retrocession agreement.

VIG had paid its portion of a $140 million settlement to Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. (Zurich) for a business interruption claim by Vale (Canada) Limited.

Infrassure denied liability, arguing it was not contractually bound to follow the settlement and that Zurich failed to take proper and businesslike steps.

The court found that Infrassure was contractually bound by the "follow the settlements" clause and that Zurich had taken proper and businesslike steps in reaching the settlement.

Judgment was granted in favour of VIG for the settlement amount and loss adjustment costs, with the court denying VIG's claim for punitive damages.

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The defendant in a reinsurance dispute brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence to particularize policy exclusions it relied upon to dispute the quantum of a business interruption claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments amounted to the withdrawal of an admission under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would cause prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant had always disputed quantum, the amendments merely clarified how quantum should be calculated, and no deliberate concession had been made that would trigger Rule 51.05.