Paul Tushinski

Following certification of a class proceeding arising from the collapse of a shopping mall, the court determined the appropriate allocation of costs for the certification motion.

Most defendants did not oppose certification and several entered into settlement agreements regarding costs.

The court distinguished between baseline costs that would have been incurred even if certification had proceeded on consent and additional costs caused by defendants who opposed certification.

The judge concluded that $140,000 represented additional costs attributable to opposition and allocated remaining unpaid costs primarily to the provincial government, whose extensive submissions challenged multiple certification criteria.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 against one defendant and $60,000 against the provincial government, with other amounts accounted for through settlements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action following the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof in Elliot Lake, which killed two people and injured dozens.

The proposed class included occupants, tenants, and employees of the mall.

The defendants included the mall owners, builders, engineers, and the Province of Ontario.

The Province opposed certification, arguing it owed no private law duty of care for negligent inspection.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for negligent inspection against the Province and that all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff sought approximately $2.6 million in damages against a contractor and an acrylic sheet manufacturer arising from alleged defects in the design, manufacture, and installation of a skylight system for a horse riding arena.

The plaintiff alleged negligent design, negligent manufacture of acrylic sheets, negligent misrepresentation in product literature, and spoliation of evidence.

After a lengthy trial, the court found no negligence or breach of contract by the contractor and no negligence in the manufacture of the acrylic sheets by the manufacturer.

Although the manufacturer should have disclosed certain test results regarding light transmittance, the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

The court further held the plaintiff fundamentally breached the contract and was contributorily negligent by refusing to install an automatic controller and by failing to implement recommended ventilation and heating measures, and also failed to mitigate its losses.

At the commencement of a lengthy construction dispute trial, the defendants sought to set aside an earlier bifurcation order so that liability and damages could be tried together, while the plaintiff moved to strike the defendants’ jury notice.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to manage the trial process and set aside the earlier order, finding that trying all issues together would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that evidentiary overlap justified a single trial.

The court also held that the case involved exceptionally complex factual, technical, and legal issues, including numerous expert reports, extensive documentary evidence, multiple causes of action, crossclaims, and potential apportionment under a Pierringer agreement.

Given these complexities, the court concluded that justice would be better served by a judge-alone trial rather than a jury.

The jury notice was therefore struck and the matter ordered to proceed on all issues before a judge.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent relief from forfeiture after the insured breached statutory condition 4(1) of the Insurance Act by driving with a suspended licence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 129 of the Insurance Act applies only to matters concerning proof of loss, not coverage.

Furthermore, the court found that even if section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act applied, the insured's conduct in ignoring registered letters from the Ministry of Transportation demonstrated wilful blindness and was incompatible with relief from forfeiture.

The judgment was varied to reduce the payable amount.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify her action as a class proceeding.

She alleged that she and other women were coerced into posing nude or topless for the respondents' newspaper and subjected to inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the claims lacked common issues, as determining liability would require individual assessments of each proposed class member's circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.