Paul J. Pape

In a securities-related class proceeding arising from alleged fraudulent statements about Indonesian gold reserves, the appellants challenged the refusal to certify negligent misrepresentation while conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and Competition Act claims had been certified.

The court held that there was no principled basis to distinguish fraudulent from negligent misrepresentation at the certification stage, given the overlap in common factual and legal issues and the low threshold for common issues under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court further held that, where three related claims were already proceeding as a class action, it was sensible and efficient to include negligent misrepresentation on the same litigation track.

The appeal was allowed and the certification order amended accordingly.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a medical negligence action arising from gynecological surgery in which sutures injured the patient’s ureter.

The court held that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence concerning the surgeon’s final inspection and failed to apply the only expert evidence addressing the precise operative circumstances, with the result that negligence should have been found.

The court upheld the trial judge’s rejection of causation between the surgery and the patient’s long-term fibromyalgia, but increased general damages for pain and suffering from $20,000 to $28,000 by using the date of the first surgery as the start of compensable harm.

The appeal was allowed, judgment for the plaintiffs was substituted, and the appellants were awarded trial and appeal costs on a party-and-party basis.

The appellants appealed a decision certifying a class action regarding the Bre-X gold mine fraud.

The motion judge had restricted the common issues to conspiracy and fraud, declining to certify negligent misrepresentation as a common issue, and limited the class to shareholders who held shares on the date the possible fraud was publicly disclosed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that negligent misrepresentation claims require individual inquiries into reliance and causation, making a class action not the preferable procedure for those claims.

The court also upheld the temporal restriction on the class, as shareholders who sold before the disclosure date could not have suffered losses caused by the misrepresentations.

The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment in a property tax assessment dispute with the Regional Assessment Commissioner.

Leave to appeal was refused.