Randy C. Sutton

This motion concerned the approval of a proposed settlement and counsel fees in a national class action against pharmaceutical companies.

The class action alleged that the atypical antipsychotic medications ABILIFY and ABILIFY MAINTENA caused various compulsive behaviours due to inadequate warnings.

The court approved a $14.75 million settlement fund, which includes compensation for class members suffering psychological harm, residual catastrophic injury, and financial loss, as well as honoraria for representative plaintiffs and class counsel fees.

The court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable, falling within the 'zone of reasonableness' despite objections from some class members regarding compensation adequacy and counsel fees.

This case involved a contractual dispute over a settlement agreement between pharmaceutical companies GSK and Pharmascience.

GSK claimed a stipulated payment from Pharmascience, alleging that a third-party generic manufacturer (Teva) had triggered a payment clause by entering the Canadian market.

The central issue was the interpretation of the term 'sale of its valacyclovir product in the Canadian market' within an exception clause, specifically whether it referred to ex-factory sales or downstream sales.

The court found that the term objectively meant ex-factory sales, considering the commercial context, the parties' control over sales, and the agreement's overall purpose.

Since Teva's ex-factory sales ceased within the 60-day period stipulated in the exception, the exception applied, and no payment was owed by Pharmascience.

The court dismissed GSK's action.

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited and Hospira Inc. (Applicants) brought an application to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The Letters Rogatory sought documentary and oral evidence from Jack Rotsztain and 1827216 Ontario Inc. (Respondents), who were non-parties to the underlying U.S. action.

The U.S. action involved allegations that Apotex Corp. breached an exclusivity agreement by secretly contracting with a different supplier, Qilu, through 182 Ontario, with Mr. Rotsztain acting as its nominal president and counsel.

The Respondents opposed the application, arguing the requests were overly broad, not relevant or necessary, otherwise obtainable, unduly burdensome, and contrary to Canadian public policy, particularly regarding solicitor-client privilege.

The court, applying the six discretionary criteria for enforcing letters rogatory, found that the Applicants failed to establish relevance, necessity, or that the evidence was not otherwise obtainable.

Crucially, the court determined that enforcing the broad requests would be unduly burdensome and infringe upon recognized Canadian legal principles, especially the sanctity of solicitor-client privilege, amounting to a "fishing expedition" not permitted under Ontario's rules for non-party discovery.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, Princes Gates GP Inc. (PG), appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and bad faith termination of agreements with the respondent tenant, 2505243 Ontario Limited (250), a food services provider.

The trial judge awarded 250 reliance damages and employee compensation damages.

PG argued errors in findings of improper termination, refusal to assist with the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance Program (CECRA), bad faith, and damages calculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed PG's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that PG's actions contributed to 250's inability to pay rent, their refusal to assist with CECRA was unjustified, and their termination was in bad faith by misleading 250 while secretly negotiating with a new provider.

The court also affirmed the reliance damages award and the employee compensation damages.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants argued that their appeal raised novel issues in the public interest, warranting no costs award.

The court rejected this, finding the appeal involved the application of well-established legal principles.

The respondent, GlaxoSmithKline Inc., successfully resisted the appeal and was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, limiting the award to costs associated with time spent by two senior lawyers.

The appellant, Stericycle ULC, appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that it, rather than Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Limited, was the primary supplier for Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under a public tendering process.

Stericycle argued that the application judge erred in contract interpretation, allowing impermissible bid repair, and failing to properly apply the duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the "Six Month Provision" or the contract start date.

The court also found no breach of the duty of good faith or honest performance by HealthPRO or PHSA, as their actions were consistent with the contract's purpose and Stericycle's reasonable expectations.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their action against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), alleging that an H1N1 vaccine manufactured by GSK caused their five-year-old daughter's death.

The appeal raised issues concerning GSK's duty to warn (including the learned intermediary rule), its post-marketing commitments, the inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that GSK adequately warned the learned intermediary (the physician), met its post-marketing obligations, and that the appellants failed to prove negligence or causation on a balance of probabilities.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary costs award.

The plaintiff, Robert Drynan, brought a motion to approve a third-party litigation funding agreement in a class action against Bausch Health Companies Inc. and related entities, alleging misleading marketing of COLD-FX® products.

The court addressed the defendants' objections concerning security for costs, litigation autonomy, overcompensation, and access to justice.

After amendments to the funding agreement to cap recovery for the funder and class counsel at 33.3% of proceeds and defer court approval for certain expenses, the court approved the agreement, finding it fair, reasonable, and conducive to access to justice, while protecting the defendants' interests.

The Plaintiffs sought costs after successfully certifying a class action and dismissing a stay motion.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in all-inclusive costs, comprising $366,149.88 in disbursements and $333,850.12 in fees.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of costs, the importance of certification motions in class actions, and the need for unsuccessful parties to provide their own bills of costs for comparison.

A portion of the costs ($30,000) was specifically allocated to two defendants (Bristol-Myers and Otsuka) for the stay motion, which the third defendant (Lundbeck) did not participate in.

The plaintiffs brought an action against GlaxoSmithKline following the sudden and unexplained death of their five-year-old daughter, who died five days after receiving the H1N1 vaccine (Arepanrix).

The plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer breached its standard of care by failing to adequately test the vaccine and failing to warn of its risks, and that the vaccine caused the child's death.

The court dismissed the action, finding no expert evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care regarding the vaccine's testing, approval, or disclosure of risks.

Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' expert evidence on causation, relying instead on the forensic pathologist and epidemiological experts who concluded there was no evidence linking the vaccine to the child's death.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of the defendant, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking declarations that the defendant franchisor breached the Arthur Wishart Act by failing to provide a disclosure document upon renewal of their franchise agreement, and breached its duty of fair dealing.

The franchisor argued it was exempt from providing a disclosure document under s. 5(7)(f) of the Act because there was no material change.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that whether the terms of the renewal agreement constituted a material change, especially in the context of the franchisor's shift toward a corporate service model, presented a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action moved to discontinue the action against Pfizer Canada Inc. and Pfizer Inc. The action alleged neuropsychiatric adverse events from the drug varenicline (CHAMPIX®).

The decision to discontinue followed the release of the EAGLES Study, which did not support the allegations of generic causation.

The defendants consented to discontinuance without costs.

The court approved the discontinuance under s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the action was brought in good faith, the discontinuance would not prejudice class members (who retain individual claims and receive notice), and it was appropriate for the Class Proceedings Fund to end its exposure to costs given the remote prospects of success.

The defendants, Pfizer, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike various claims in the plaintiff Apotex Inc.'s Amended Statement of Claim.

Apotex sought relief for being kept out of the market by Pfizer's invalid patent for Viagra, asserting statutory claims under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, Statutes of Monopolies, and Trade-marks Act, and common law claims for unjust enrichment, nuisance, Ashby v. White, and conspiracy.

The court struck the claims under s. 8 of the PMNOC Regulations and the independent cause of action based on Ashby v. White, finding that the statutory conditions for PMNOC damages were not met and Ashby v. White is a principle, not a cause of action.

However, the court dismissed Pfizer's motion to strike the claims under the Trade-marks Act, unjust enrichment, nuisance, and conspiracy, rejecting the 'complete code theory' as insufficiently settled for a preliminary stage motion and finding the pleadings for these claims to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The defendant moved for leave to amend its statement of defence to plead a limitation period defence and sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim as statute-barred.

The court granted leave to amend under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding no prejudice that could not be compensated by costs and that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue.

However, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, holding that the discoverability issue under the Limitations Act, 2002 involved complex factual questions regarding nine different products purchased at different times and representations made by the defendant.

The evidentiary record did not clearly establish when the plaintiff discovered that its losses were caused by the defendant.

The limitation issue was therefore held to require determination at trial.