Paul J. Martin

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding a defective medical product.

The defendants argued that the pleadings did not satisfy section 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act and that the litigation plan improperly provided for a reference to determine individual issues under section 25.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's decision, and emphasizing the deference owed to judges managing class proceedings.

Following the dismissal of several class actions against automobile insurers, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs, who had relied on a previous Court of Appeal decision that was subsequently reversed, sought their costs despite being unsuccessful, citing disastrous financial consequences for their contingency-fee counsel.

The successful insurers sought their costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs to either side.

The court held that the Class Proceedings Act was not intended to insulate unsuccessful plaintiffs from costs, but also found that the insurers should not receive costs because the litigation constituted a test case and the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on the court's own prior jurisprudence.

The defendants' motion for leave to appeal a decision substituting the representative plaintiff in a class action was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs of $22,858.21, while the defendants argued costs should be in the cause or limited to $2,500.

The court found the plaintiff's costs excessive for a narrow procedural motion that arose partly from a carriage dispute among class counsel.

Applying the principle of fair and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $2,500 payable by the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order substituting two new representative plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding defective pacemakers.

The original plaintiff, who had a defibrillator, was moved to a consolidated defibrillator action.

The defendants argued the substitution deprived them of a limitation period defence and that the original plaintiff was a mere placeholder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice and that special circumstances existed.

The appellants, automobile insurers, appealed the dismissal of their motions to dismiss class proceedings brought by the respondent insureds.

The insureds claimed that the insurers breached statutory condition 6(7) by reducing their actual cash value payments by the policy deductible when taking title to the salvage in total loss claims.

The motion judge, bound by the Court of Appeal's previous decision in McNaughton, dismissed the insurers' motions.

A five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal held that McNaughton was wrongly decided, as statutory condition 6(7) does not quantify the insurer's payment obligation but merely gives the option to acquire salvage.

The Court overruled McNaughton, allowed the appeals, and dismissed the insureds' actions.

The plaintiffs in a class action brought motions to quash the defendants' appeals from orders dismissing their Rule 20 and Rule 21 motions.

The plaintiffs argued the orders were interlocutory, not final.

The Court of Appeal held that the orders, which dismissed the motions on a question of law and bound the court to a specific interpretation of the Insurance Act, gave rise to res judicata and were therefore final orders.

The motions to quash were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers and the independent tester (ULC) of an allegedly defective smoke alarm, seeking damages for pure economic loss.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the manufacturers whose products he did not purchase.

However, the court allowed the negligence claim against the manufacturer of his specific smoke alarm to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that a claim for pure economic loss based on a defective safety device would fail.

The negligence claim against the independent tester was struck out as it owed no prima facie duty of care to the purchaser.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding sought to introduce a settlement agreement and reasons for decision from a prior Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) prosecution against the defendants.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's refusal to strike these documents from the plaintiff's affidavit, arguing they were protected by settlement privilege and inadmissible.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the settlement agreement and reasons, finding that the defendants waived privilege by entering a public regulatory settlement, which was tantamount to a guilty plea.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to strike the statement of allegations, as mere allegations have no evidentiary value.