Paul Morrison

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding regarding universal life insurance policies brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiffs sought production of 12 general categories of documents and several specific documents related to the defendant's repricing of the cost of insurance and administrative fees.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality, granting production for some requests, such as internal communications regarding policyholder communications and documents related to the 'Maximum Premium' in death spiral situations, while dismissing others that were overly broad, irrelevant, or disproportionate.

Costs of $50,000 were awarded in the cause.

The Plaintiff brought a motion for directions regarding the continuation of the cross-examination of a Defendant, Dr. Fenton, on his affidavits.

The cross-examination was terminated by the Plaintiff due to alleged persistent interruptions and interference by Defence counsel.

The Plaintiff sought orders for Dr. Fenton to re-attend, for the examination to be video-recorded, and for specific rules of conduct for Defence counsel, along with costs.

The Defendants argued the cross-examination was properly ended and sought costs.

The court found Defence counsel's repetitive commentary obstructive, justifying the termination.

It ordered the continuation of the cross-examination with strict rules for counsel's objections and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.

However, the request for video recording was denied, as it is an exception under the Rules of Civil Procedure and not justified by the circumstances.

The applicant sought to add the respondent's former counsel as parties to an application and compel them to disclose information regarding ongoing litigation pursuant to an assignment agreement.

The respondent had previously breached a court order to provide this information.

The court allowed the motion to add the law firms as parties, finding it legally tenable and necessary to adjudicate effectively.

The court ordered the law firms to disclose the factual information required by the assignment agreement, exercising its equitable jurisdiction to make orders against non-parties to prevent the facilitation of a party's defiance of a court order.

However, the court refused to order the disclosure of broader information protected by solicitor-client privilege, finding no implicit waiver of privilege in the assignment agreement.

This endorsement followed the twelfth case management conference, addressing the progression of the action towards trial.

The court noted the completion of pleadings and examinations for discovery.

A key issue was the non-compliance of one defendant with a previous cost order of $44,000.

The plaintiffs, prioritizing trial scheduling, reserved their right to seek remedies for non-compliance.

The court issued specific directions for trial readiness, including deadlines for expert reports, filing of the Trial Record, and a certification form for setting pre-trial and trial dates.

Parties were also directed to confer on adopting a summary trial format versus an ordinary trial.

At the eleventh case management conference in this action, the plaintiffs sought an expedited trial date and an order for a summary trial under Rule 76.12.

The defendants opposed the summary trial process and sought time to complete discoveries and deliver responding expert reports.

The court declined to order a summary trial at this stage but established a timetable for the delivery of amended pleadings, completion of discoveries, and exchange of expert reports, with the next case management conference scheduled for January 2020.

The defendants, Ted Slightham and Tatiana Doubovsky, sought to schedule motions under Rule 21.01 to dismiss the action against them, arguing the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim did not plead a reasonable cause of action or that the plaintiffs lacked legal capacity.

The plaintiffs, Walter Zuppinger and Min Yan, opposed, arguing the motions were untimely and would cause delay.

The court, exercising its gatekeeping function in a case-managed action, determined that granting the defendants' request to advance these motions was proportionate, efficient, and timely given the significant change in the action following a partial settlement.

The court provided detailed case management directions for the scheduling and conduct of the motions, reserving substantive assessment to the motions judge.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike a negligence claim without leave to amend.

The respondent, a lawyer acting as a notary, had notarized an affidavit containing allegations against the appellant.

The affidavit was subsequently published in a newspaper article.

The appellant's original defamation claim was statute-barred, so he amended to allege negligence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that no duty of care existed between the appellant and respondent.

The court held that a lawyer does not owe a duty to third parties to verify the accuracy of affidavit contents, and there was insufficient proximity between the parties to ground a duty of care.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 34.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the responding parties to produce documents in advance of cross-examinations on affidavits sworn in support of the responding parties' summary judgment motions.

The responding parties argued the motion was prohibited under Rule 48.04(1) because the action had been set down for trial, and that the requests were disproportionate.

The court held that Rule 48.04(1) did not bar the motion and the moving party had not waived the right to documentary discovery.

However, because the responding parties had never served affidavits of documents, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice, directing the responding parties to first serve affidavits of documents so that relevance and proportionality could be properly assessed.

The plaintiff, Keatley Surveying Ltd., brought a class action against Teranet Inc., alleging copyright infringement for scanning, copying, and making available online plans of survey registered in Ontario's electronic land registry system.

Both parties moved for summary judgment on common issues, primarily concerning whether copyright in the plans belonged to the Province of Ontario under s. 12 of the Copyright Act upon registration or deposit.

The court held that while copyright subsisted in the plans, it belonged to the Province of Ontario pursuant to s. 12 of the Copyright Act, as a result of their registration or deposit in the land registry office, which transferred ownership of the property, including copyright, to the Crown.

Consequently, Teranet, acting under license from the province, did not infringe copyright.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the class action was dismissed.

Following a prior decision approving class counsel fees in a class proceeding settlement, class counsel sought clarification regarding the calculation of the fee award, treatment of consulting law firm fees, application of taxes, and comments regarding disclosure of a fee sharing agreement.

The court acknowledged that an arithmetic error had occurred in the original calculation and corrected the award by applying a 10% reduction to the claimed counsel fee before adding disbursements.

The court clarified that consulting law firms were to be paid from the approved counsel fee rather than treated as additional disbursements and confirmed that applicable taxes were payable in addition to the approved amount.

The court also addressed concerns about disclosure of the fee sharing agreement, reiterating that failure to fully disclose the agreement’s substance was a mistake despite counsel’s intentions.

Representative plaintiffs in a proposed national competition law class action sought court approval of partial settlement agreements with three defendants, approval of contingency fee agreements with class counsel, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court approved settlements totaling $13.63 million with Bank of America, Capital One, and Citigroup and found the agreements fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court also approved the contingency fee agreements but scrutinized a separate fee‑sharing agreement between class counsel and a rival law firm that had commenced competing class actions.

The judge held that the fee‑sharing agreement required court approval, was not fair or reasonable to class members, and may constitute champerty or maintenance.

Class counsel’s requested fee was reduced by 10%, and the court ordered that no payment be made to the rival firm under the unauthorized agreement.