Paul Miller

On January 8, 2020, Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was shot down by Iranian air defence missiles shortly after takeoff from Tehran, killing all 176 persons aboard.

The trial judge found that UIA breached the standard of care by failing to conduct a proper security risk assessment in accordance with ICAO 10084 (Risk Assessment Manual for Civil Aircraft Operations Over or Near Conflict Zones).

Specifically, UIA failed to access necessary and available information, failed to conduct a hazard identification and safety assessment, and failed to communicate with the flight commander before departure.

As a result, UIA's liability under the Montreal Convention was unlimited rather than capped at approximately $235,000 per passenger.

The appellate court dismissed UIA's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or mixed fact and law.

The plaintiffs brought actions against Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) under the Montreal Convention following the shoot-down of Flight PS752 by Iranian military surface-to-air missiles shortly after takeoff from Tehran.

UIA admitted the shoot-down was an 'accident' under the Convention, making it strictly liable, but sought to limit its liability by proving it was not negligent in allowing the flight to depart.

The Superior Court of Justice found that UIA failed to meet the standard of care for a reasonable airline operating in or near a conflict zone, as it did not conduct a proper security threat risk assessment or any safety risk assessment, and failed to gather available intelligence or brief the flight commander.

The court held that UIA failed to prove its negligence did not cause the passengers' deaths or that the harm was too remote, resulting in unlimited liability for the airline.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding sought approval of the long-form and short-form notices to be distributed to affected class members following a previously approved settlement.

The court approved the notices, finding them to be in plain language and clear regarding participation and opt-out procedures.

The court also permitted the notices to be distributed in English only, as the defendant only provided services in English.

This decision addresses a class action arising from a cyber breach of CarePartners' computer system.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement agreement, and approval of class counsel fees and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The court granted all motions, certifying the class, approving a $3.44 million settlement fund, a 20% contingency fee for class counsel, and $5,000 honoraria for each representative plaintiff.

The judgment notably provides a detailed analysis and affirmation of the practice of awarding honoraria to representative plaintiffs in class actions, disagreeing with a recent decision that sought to end the practice, and outlining factors for assessing their quantum.

The defendants in a proposed national class action regarding baby powder and ovarian cancer requested that their motion to dismiss or stay the action for delay or abuse of process be heard before the plaintiffs' certification motion.

The defendants argued that the Ontario action was duplicative of parallel class actions in other provinces and had languished for over five years.

The court applied the Cannon factors and determined that the stay/dismissal motion should be heard simultaneously with the certification motion, as doing so would promote judicial economy and allow the court to better assess the preferable procedure and multi-jurisdictional issues.

The plaintiffs sought early production of an investigation report from the defendants to determine whether there was an evidentiary basis to serve two John Doe defendants located in Mexico.

The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the normal discovery process under the Rules of Civil Procedure should be followed.

The court agreed with the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs could not compel early production to avoid the ordinary costs risks of litigation.

The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the remaining defendants within 60 days.

The defendants sought a reconsideration of a costs decision following a class action certification motion, arguing for no costs due to divided success because only one of the plaintiffs' two distinct cases was certified.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the joinder of claims was proper under the Rules of Civil Procedure and consistent with the principle of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The original costs award of $150,000 to the plaintiffs was confirmed.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The parties agreed that $150,000, all inclusive, was a fair and reasonable amount for the certification motion, which included $5,000 for a motion to strike an affidavit.

The defendants did not deliver any costs submissions opposing the request.

The court found the agreed amount to be fair and reasonable and awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a plastic surgeon and his clinic for breach of privacy.

The claims involved two main grievances: the surreptitious video surveillance of patients in the clinic (the Surveillance Complaint) and the posting of patient images on social media without valid consent (the Social Media Complaint).

The court certified the Surveillance Complaint, finding it met all criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court declined to certify the Social Media Complaint, concluding that the issue of valid consent was highly idiosyncratic and required individual inquiries, meaning it failed the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of certification.

The court granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, prejudicial, or detailed a College of Physicians and Surgeons investigation contrary to section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The plaintiffs in a proposed privacy class action brought a preliminary motion to strike the complete clinical medical charts and medical records of the plaintiffs and two deponents, which were included in the responding affidavits of the defendant doctor.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images on social media without consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the detailed medical records were irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the certification motion, as the action concerned privacy breaches rather than medical malpractice.

In a proposed class action against a plastic surgeon for breach of privacy involving surreptitious video recording and unauthorized social media postings, the plaintiffs brought a preliminary motion for leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit regarding class size after cross-examinations had concluded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had provided their best information based on the plaintiffs' class definition, the supplementary evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, and allowing the affidavit would amount to prejudicial case-splitting.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike the expert report of Dr. Mary Anne Franks, proffered by the plaintiffs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images online without consent.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that Dr. Franks' evidence regarding the social and cultural context of non-consensual image distribution and American law was not relevant or helpful to determining the common issues for certification.

This motion for directions in a settled class action concerned the interpretation of two ambiguous provisions within the settlement agreement related to claims administration.

The court was asked to clarify whether Article 4.3(5) provided a minimum or maximum period for claimants to correct deficiencies and whether Article 4.2(6) required a final assessment of all claims by 60 days post-deadline or merely a status report.

The court adopted the interpretation proposed by Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator, confirming that the Claims Administrator has discretion to grant extensions beyond 30 days for correcting deficiencies and that the 60-day report is a status update, not a final assessment.

The motion was unopposed by the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion, with the defendants' consent, to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes, approve a settlement agreement, approve the plan for disseminating notices, approve the forms of the notices, and grant a privacy and disclosure order.

The class action concerned defective implantable cardioverter or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators manufactured by the defendants, which were prone to premature battery depletion.

The court found that all criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied, noting that these criteria may be applied less rigorously in a settlement context.

The motion was granted, approving the certification for settlement, the settlement agreement, and related procedural orders.

The plaintiffs in a proposed product liability class action concerning defective cardiac defibrillators moved for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Bentham IMF Capital Inc. The proposed agreement featured a novel hybrid retainer and a contingency fee structure heavily favouring the funder.

The court found that while third-party funding was necessary for access to justice, the proposed agreement was potentially champertous due to the uncapped and disproportionate reward to the funder, and it improperly interfered with the plaintiffs' litigation autonomy.

The court conditionally approved the agreement, subject to the parties amending it to make the funder's contingency fee and any termination of the agreement subject to court approval, and removing clauses that interfered with the lawyer-client relationship.