Perell

In a class action arising from a train derailment where the defendants admitted liability, the parties could not agree on a litigation plan for the individual issues phase to determine damages.

The plaintiffs proposed a plan involving a test case for mental distress damages, while the defendants proposed a more cumbersome procedure with extensive discovery rights.

The court rejected both plans as inadequate and contrary to the goals of access to justice and judicial economy.

The court proposed a three-tier procedure based on the quantum of damages claimed and directed the parties to negotiate a plan based on this proposal.

In a class action arising from a train derailment where the defendants admitted liability, the parties could not agree on a litigation plan for the individual issues phase to determine damages.

The plaintiffs proposed a plan involving a test case for mental distress damages, while the defendants proposed a more cumbersome procedure.

The court rejected both plans as inadequate for achieving access to justice and judicial economy.

The court proposed an alternative three-tiered claims procedure based on the amount claimed and directed the parties to negotiate a final plan based on this proposal.

The applicant, an impoverished former student of the Fort William Sanatorium School, sought an advance costs award to fund a Request for Directions to have the school recognized as an Indian Residential School under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

After numerous lawyers declined the case due to financial risk, the applicant brought this motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the applicant met the strict criteria for an advance costs award: her claim had prima facie merit, she was genuinely impecunious, and the case raised issues of public importance regarding access to justice for residential school survivors.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy that artificially inflated prices for direct and indirect purchasers in Canada.

The court certified the action solely for the statutory cause of action under section 36 of the Competition Act.

The court excluded 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought from non-defendants) from the class, finding it plain and obvious they lacked a cause of action due to indeterminate liability and lack of restitutionary basis.

The court also declined to certify the common law claims for unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment, holding that they were precluded by the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Competition Act.

The remaining certification criteria were met for the statutory claim.

In a class action regarding price-fixing of DRAM devices, a settlement and distribution protocol were approved by the courts.

A class member subsequently alleged that the distribution protocol contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code by requiring family members residing in the same household to pool their claims, which allegedly discriminated based on family and marital status.

The court held a motion for directions to determine the issue.

The court ruled that the Human Rights Code does not apply to court orders, including a court-approved distribution protocol, as they are not 'services' under the Code.

Furthermore, even if the Code applied, the pooling requirement did not constitute prima facie discrimination, and any disadvantage was justified to prevent windfall compensation and encourage claims.

A class member challenged a court-approved Distribution Protocol in a class action settlement, alleging it contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code by requiring family members to pool their claims for minimum compensation, thereby discriminating on the basis of family and marital status.

The court held that the Human Rights Code does not apply to court orders or distribution schemes under the Class Proceedings Act.

Furthermore, even if the Code applied, the pooling requirement did not constitute discrimination, as it was a justified mechanism to encourage claims while preventing windfall overcompensation.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer was too indeterminate to trigger costs consequences because the principal amount the defendant would have to pay was not fixed or determinable.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $31,000 all inclusive, and allowed the plaintiff's claim for pre- and post-judgment interest.

Following success on a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought enhanced costs based on an unaccepted Rule 49 offer.

The court held that the offer was too indeterminate to trigger Rule 49 consequences because the amount payable to settle was not fixed or knowable at the time of acceptance.

The court also allowed pre-judgment and post-judgment interest that had been overlooked on the summary judgment motion.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $31,000 all inclusive.

In this certified class action, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing claims by private issuers of motor vehicle licences and registrations alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from compensation fixed by the province.

The plaintiff informally sought summary judgment on issues including commercially reasonable compensation, good faith, and the anti-fettering doctrine.

Applying the post-Hryniak summary judgment framework, the court held that the action raised numerous genuine, novel, and profound issues at the intersection of private and public law that should be determined at trial.

The court emphasized the need for a full evidentiary record, party vindication, and appellate review.

Both the motion and the informal cross-request for summary judgment were dismissed, with costs in the cause.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside a default judgment in a defamation action, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs thrown away for the default judgment and partial indemnity costs for the motion.

The defendants sought costs against the plaintiff, alleging misconduct.

The court declined to award costs to the defendants and ordered them to pay the plaintiff's wasted costs of $29,491.52 and partial indemnity costs of $19,507.74, payable conditionally based on whether the defendants comply with the order setting aside the default judgment.

The representative plaintiffs in two certified class actions brought a motion to complete the administration of the settlement, discharge the administrator, and approve a cy-près distribution of the remaining $5,373.74 to a charity.

The court granted the discharge but denied the cy-près distribution.

Applying the principle that cy-près should not be used when direct compensation is practicable, the court ordered the remaining funds to be distributed equally among six class members who had submitted late claims due to mail delivery failures.

The applicants, former students of St. Anne's and Bishop Horden Indian Residential Schools, brought a Request for Directions asserting that Canada failed to comply with its report writing obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

They sought orders requiring Canada to revise School Narratives and Person of Interest Reports, and to provide unredacted source documents to adjudicators and claimants.

The court found that Canada's updated reports for St. Anne's did not comply with the Agreement and ordered Canada to revise them to include a detailed chart of abuse allegations and corresponding documents.

The court also ordered Canada, on consent, to provide unredacted copies of publicly available court records, but dismissed the request for unredacted copies of other documents, citing privacy safeguards in the Agreement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against the Toshiba and Etron defendants in a price-fixing case involving the SRAM industry.

The parties reached settlement agreements wherein Toshiba agreed to pay $475,000 and Etron agreed to pay $150,000.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motion for certification was granted, and the proposed notices of hearings were approved.

The plaintiff brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking declarations regarding the construction of a floating dock and boathouse by his neighbors on a lake.

The neighbors had built the structure without municipal building permits or provincial work/occupancy permits, relying on the municipality's position that it lacked jurisdiction over Crown lands and the province's position that floating structures were exempt.

The court held that the municipality's zoning by-laws and the Building Code Act apply to private individuals constructing on Crown lands covered by water.

Furthermore, the court found that the provincial regulations under the Public Lands Act require work and occupancy permits for such structures, rejecting the government's interpretation as absurd.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion to certify a securities class action for settlement purposes, approve a $12.5 million settlement, and approve class counsel fees of $3,437,500.

The action involved allegations of misrepresentation and failure to make timely disclosure regarding mining operations.

Despite earlier dismissals of certification and leave motions, the parties reached a settlement while a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada was pending.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, certified the action for settlement purposes, and approved the requested counsel fees.

The plaintiffs brought an unsuccessful refusals motion in a proposed class action.

The successful defendant sought $30,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was excessive for an uncomplicated motion and suggested $5,000.

The court found the motion was important and vigorously contested, but agreed the defendant's claim was excessive.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 payable to the defendant in any event of the certification motion.

Dr. Esty sold his dental practice to Dr. Douris.

Two former employees subsequently sued Dr. Douris and his professional corporation for wrongful dismissal.

Dr. Douris counterclaimed against the employees and joined Dr. Esty, alleging negligent misrepresentation regarding the practice's patient numbers and seeking indemnification for the wrongful dismissal claims.

Dr. Esty brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaims against him.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of misrepresentation, reliance, or breach of contract, and concluding that the indemnity clause in the sale agreement did not cover wrongful dismissal claims arising after the closing.

During the distribution phase of a class proceeding, class counsel and counsel for five class members sought court approval of an instruction to the claims administrator to resolve a potential Human Rights Code complaint regarding the distribution plan.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it could not endorse the proposed instruction or the payment of costs from the settlement fund without ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The court directed that a full motion for directions proceed.

The applicants, former students at the Bishop Horden Indian Residential School, brought a Request for Directions alleging that Canada breached its document disclosure obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

They sought orders compelling Canada to conduct additional searches for documents related to abuse at the school and requiring the Secretariat to establish a witness-matching program.

The court found that Canada breached its contractual obligations by failing to collect documents from the RCMP detachment at Moose Factory.

The court ordered Canada to conduct these additional searches but dismissed the requests for a witness-matching program and broader document production, finding they exceeded Canada's obligations under the IRSSA.

On a summary judgment motion arising from a residential mortgage default, the bank sought dismissal of the plaintiffs' action alleging fabricated default, forgery, and wrongful possession, and judgment on its mortgage enforcement counterclaim.

The court held there was no genuine issue for trial because the evidentiary record established the mortgagor had defaulted, the bank was entitled to take possession, and the allegations of fraud and tampering were unsupported.

The non-owner plaintiff had no apparent interest in the mortgage, and the mortgagor had no defence to the debt claim.

The action was dismissed and judgment was granted to the bank for the mortgage debt, with substantial indemnity costs as provided in the mortgage.