Randy Sutton

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of COLD-FX products, alleging that representations that the products were 'proven by science' or 'clinically proven' to reduce cold and flu symptoms were false and misleading.

The court found that the plaintiff met all the requirements for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court held that the claims under the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, and for unjust enrichment disclosed valid causes of action, as reliance is not required for these claims.

The court certified the class and the proposed common issues against Bausch Health Canada Inc. and Valeant Canada LP, finding that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The plaintiff, a food and beverage operator, sued the defendant hotel for unlawful and bad faith termination of their commercial leases and service agreements.

The hotel terminated the agreements during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging unpaid rent and other breaches, while secretly negotiating with a replacement operator.

The court found the termination was unlawful and in bad faith, as the hotel wrongfully withheld deposits, owed the plaintiff money, and unreasonably refused to assist with a government rent subsidy application.

The court awarded the plaintiff reliance damages for its capital investments and employee termination costs, less a set-off for the hotel's proven counterclaim.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a wireless service provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds upon cancellation of services, relying on the provincial Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013.

The defendant brought a cross-motion arguing the provincial Act was ultra vires or inoperative due to federal jurisdiction over telecommunications.

The court held that the provincial Act was valid consumer protection legislation, and was not rendered inoperative by the doctrines of federal paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action against a telecommunications provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds to customers who cancelled their wireless service agreements.

The court denied certification for the national class claim under the Telecommunications Act, finding no viable cause of action.

However, the court granted certification for an Ontario subclass advancing claims under the Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013, finding that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and the common issues, including aggregate and punitive damages, were suitable for a class proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a telecommunications provider seeking pro-rated refunds for prepaid wireless services after cancelling her contract.

The plaintiff relied on a statutory cause of action under the Telecommunications Act, alleging the provider breached the CRTC's Wireless Code.

The provider brought a cross-motion to strike the claim.

The Superior Court granted the cross-motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was essentially for breach of contract, which is expressly excluded from the statutory cause of action by s. 72(3) of the Act.

Alternatively, the court held it would decline to exercise jurisdiction and defer to the CRTC, which has exclusive regulatory authority over the Wireless Code.

The applicant, an incumbent biomedical waste disposal provider, challenged the award of a new primary supplier contract to a competitor.

The applicant alleged that the respondents engaged in bid repair and breached their duty of fairness by allowing the competitor to delay the implementation of services and assisting them with regulatory approvals post-award.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness to unsuccessful bidders ended once the contract was awarded, and that the post-award communications were operational in nature and did not constitute bid repair.

The court also rejected the argument that the respondents had irrevocably elected the applicant as the primary supplier by utilizing their services during the transition period.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the defendant employer for unpaid overtime, initially claiming $100 million.

The parties reached a pre-certification settlement of $7 million, which included a new time-tracking system.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes and approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the adjusted actual loss, comparable settlements, and the significant litigation risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on the travel industry.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff due to retaliatory employment consequences, and approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers and marketers of the antipsychotic drugs Abilify and Abilify Maintena, alleging negligence, failure to warn, and conspiracy regarding the risk of impulse control disorders.

The defendants opposed certification and brought a motion to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process, citing a parallel authorized class action in Québec.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, including establishing a plausible methodology for proving general causation.

The court dismissed the defendants' stay motion, finding that the Ontario action was not an abuse of process despite the last-minute amendments to the Québec claim that mirrored the Ontario pleading.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's product liability action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff had killed his son while experiencing a psychotic episode, which he alleged was caused by the defendant's antidepressant medication.

The court found that while the plaintiff had cognitive awareness of his potential claim earlier, he lacked the psychological capacity to commence the action until his absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The parties appeared before the court to advise that the contested issue of carriage had been resolved by consent.

The court approved an agreed-upon schedule for the proceedings leading up to a certification motion and potential jurisdiction motions, including deadlines for the production of medical and gambling records, delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums.

The plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages arising from the rescission of a Dealer Agreement, which it alleged was a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to stay the action, relying on a mandatory arbitration clause in the agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration clause conflicted with an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the summary judgment exception under s. 7(2) of the Arbitration Act applied.

The court found the arbitration clause applied and that the plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden of showing this was a clear case for summary judgment.

The action was stayed pending the arbitrator's determination of jurisdiction.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding concerning pharmaceutical product liability, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining certification against one defendant but not the other.

The court considered Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretionary principles governing costs in class proceedings.

While the defendants argued the plaintiff’s claim should be substantially reduced due to partial success and limited certification of common issues, the court rejected most of these arguments.

However, because certification was not granted against one defendant, the court reduced the plaintiff’s claimed costs by approximately 20 percent.

Costs of $300,000 all-inclusive were awarded payable forthwith.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed national class action alleging that a prescription smoking‑cessation drug caused neuropsychiatric adverse events and that the manufacturer breached its duty to warn consumers and physicians.

The court considered the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court held that there was some basis in fact for a duty to warn claim against the Canadian manufacturer based on expert and anecdotal evidence of adverse psychiatric events.

The proposed class definition and common issues were amended to focus on specific neuropsychiatric symptoms and the adequacy of product monograph warnings between 2007 and 2010.

The proceeding was certified against the Canadian manufacturer but not against the U.S. parent company, whose involvement lacked a factual basis.