Norman T. Mizobuchi

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by defendants seeking to hold litigation lenders liable for costs incurred by a class member (Mr. Zuber) who pursued an exaggerated damages claim and incurred substantial debt from litigation loans.

The trial judge had refused to order the lenders to pay costs, finding they did not instigate or control the litigation in a manner amounting to an abuse of process, despite the onerous interest rates and the loans impeding settlement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, reiterating that non-party costs are limited to "person of straw" or abuse of process scenarios, neither of which applied to the lenders' conduct.

The court also refused leave to cross-appeal the trial judge's decision not to award costs of the motion to the lenders, finding no error in principle.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) damages for breach of a conditional sales contract and ordering that the judgment not be released by a bankruptcy discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the breach of contract claim, finding that the loan renewal did not negate the breach given the continuing obligation to provide security.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part by striking the order that the judgment survive bankruptcy, deferring this issue to the Bankruptcy Court due to RBC's awareness of the issues at the time of renewal.

The appellants appealed an order from the motion judge dismissing a certification motion for class proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge's order was clear and unequivocal in dismissing only the certification motion, not the underlying claims.

Under section 30 of the Class Proceedings Act, an appeal from an order refusing to certify a proceeding lies to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal to the Court of Appeal was quashed without prejudice to the appellants proceeding with the appeal in the Divisional Court.

The plaintiffs brought a Rule 21 motion seeking a declaration that Rouge Valley Health System was estopped from denying liability for various statutory and common law causes of action, based on an Order from the Information and Privacy Commissioner (PHIPA Order HO-013).

The court dismissed the motion, exercising its discretion under the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

It found that applying issue estoppel would be procedurally and substantively unfair given the magnitude of the class action ($400 million) against a public institution, and the informal, discretionary nature of the administrative tribunal's proceedings, which focused on its privacy law mandate rather than complex civil law.

The court also noted that such an application would be inimical to the due administration of justice by discouraging settlements with the Commissioner.

The Plaintiff sought costs for a successful class action certification motion.

The Defendants argued for no costs or reduced costs due to partial success in opposing certification on some issues, and Mr. Theberge sought substantial indemnity costs for the uncertified fraud claim against him.

The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Good v. Toronto Police Services Board precedent, found the Plaintiff substantially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs, rejecting the Defendants' arguments for reduction based on partial success or an award to Mr. Theberge.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the developer and its president regarding condominium units in the Alta Vista Ridge development.

The claims included breach of contract, breach of the Condominium Act, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, primarily concerning the failure to provide a forced air heating system as specified in disclosure statements and, for a subclass, the failure to provide storage units included in purchase agreements.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, defining the main class and a subclass, finding valid causes of action for most claims.

However, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and personal liability against the president, Joey Theberge, were struck for lack of pleaded material facts.

The court found the class proceeding to be the preferable procedure, promoting access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification.