Ranjan K. Agarwal

The appellant, Glenn Winder, appealed a motion judge's decision that his claim for the intentional tort of intrusion upon seclusion against Marriott International, Inc. did not disclose a cause of action.

The lawsuit stemmed from a data breach of Marriott's Starwood hotels reservation database.

Winder argued that Marriott's collection and storage of personal information, in a manner that did not meet its representations and legal obligations regarding security, constituted an invasion of privacy, vitiating consent.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion requires an actual intrusion into private affairs, not merely a failure to safeguard information from third-party intrusion.

The court found no facts pleaded to support that Marriott itself disclosed or caused disclosure of the information, distinguishing it from a failure to protect against external hacking.

This appeal addresses whether an Ontario court should recognize and enforce a "ricochet judgment" – a British Columbia judgment that itself recognized and enforced a foreign judgment from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The appellant, H.M.B. Holdings Limited, sought to enforce a Privy Council judgment (compensation for expropriated property in Antigua and Barbuda) in British Columbia, obtaining a default judgment.

After an unsuccessful attempt to register this BC judgment in Ontario under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, H.M.B. commenced a common law action in Ontario to recognize and enforce the BC judgment.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding no real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the underlying Antiguan dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, but on the principled basis that the common-law test for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments does not extend to ricochet judgments, as such judgments are local in scope and enforcing them in another jurisdiction would improperly circumvent local laws, such as limitation periods.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion for a declaration that the defendants were contractually precluded from opposing his motion for leave to appeal a decision denying class certification.

The parties had previously entered into a Litigation and Mediation Process Agreement which stated that no party would oppose a motion for leave to appeal an order disposing of all or a portion of the claim.

The court interpreted the agreement and found that the certification decision disposed of a portion of the claim, meaning the defendants were bound by their agreement not to oppose the leave to appeal motion.

The applicant, Gregory Zentner, sought certification of a class action against GFA World and related entities, alleging fraud and misappropriation of charitable donations.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim on limitation grounds.

The court dismissed Zentner's motion for certification, finding that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action because the donations were unencumbered gifts, meaning donors did not suffer a compensable loss recoverable through civil action.

The court also found insufficient factual basis for common issues, particularly regarding reliance and causation.

However, the defendants' summary judgment motion was also dismissed, as there remained a genuine issue requiring a trial concerning when Zentner discovered, or reasonably ought to have discovered, the material facts of his claim for limitation purposes.

The plaintiffs, in a class action against various hockey leagues and teams, brought a motion seeking an advance ruling on the admissibility of an Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for their certification motion.

They also requested directions for cross-examinations of the IRP members, including the issuance of interprovincial summonses.

The court dismissed the requests for advance rulings on the admissibility of evidence and the conduct of cross-examinations, finding no precedent or jurisdiction for such preliminary determinations in civil proceedings.

However, the court granted the request for an interprovincial summons certificate, which the defendants did not oppose, allowing the IRP members to be cross-examined under normal rules of procedure.

In a proposed class action arising from a data breach of Marriott's hotel reservation database, the parties stated a question of law under Rule 21(1)(a) as to whether the plaintiff pleaded a legally viable cause of action for intrusion on seclusion.

The plaintiff argued that Marriott, by allegedly obtaining data under false pretenses and failing to protect it, was a 'constructive intruder'.

The court rejected this argument, following binding precedent that the tort of intrusion on seclusion applies only to actual intruders, not to defendants who fail to prevent a third-party hack.

The court concluded the Statement of Claim did not disclose a cause of action for intrusion on seclusion against Marriott.

The applicants (Sellers) and respondents (Purchasers) disputed the process for valuing shares under a shareholders agreement following the termination of the Sellers' employment.

The Sellers applied to appoint their preferred arbitrator and argued for a full arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Purchasers cross-applied to appoint their preferred arbitrator, seeking a streamlined valuation process and a court declaration on the valuation date.

The court held that the agreement contemplated a formal arbitration under the Act, not merely a valuation.

The court declined to determine the valuation date, leaving it to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle, and ordered the parties to select a neutral third-party arbitrator.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding arising from a city bus crash.

The Certification Judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, noting the plaintiff's strategic choice to pursue complex systemic negligence claims while ignoring direct claims against the bus driver and the city as owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Certification Judge's discretionary preferability analysis.

Leave to appeal the costs order of the certification motion was also denied.

The Russian Federation appealed an interlocutory decision that denied its request to adduce fresh evidence on an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's interim award on jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an application to challenge a tribunal's jurisdiction under Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law is a hearing de novo, not a deferential review.

Consequently, the parties are entitled as of right to adduce evidence that was not before the arbitral tribunal.

The plaintiffs brought motions to compel the examination of a defendant on behalf of a corporate defendant and for further and better affidavits of documents from several defendants.

The parties agreed to dismiss the examination motion and portions of the production motion without prejudice.

The court ordered one defendant to produce certain financial documents relevant to personal enrichment and an itemized Schedule B list, but dismissed the remaining requests for further documents and better email descriptors, finding insufficient evidence of missing documents and that the current descriptors were proportionate.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Ottawa arising from a deadly bus accident at Westboro Station.

The proposed action was structured to plead systemic negligence in transit design and operation while avoiding claims against the city as the owner of the vehicle and employer of the driver.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as it ignored readily available compensation under the motor vehicle insurance regime and numerous individual actions had already been commenced.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $4.95 million settlement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium in a class action alleging the defendants misrepresented vehicle fuel economy ratings.

The court initially rejected the settlement approval based on a take-up analysis, but approved it after class counsel provided a revised analysis showing the settlement amount was fair relative to the maximum recoverable at trial.

The court also approved a modified honorarium of $3,000 for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 33 percent contingency fee.

The defendants brought motions across five Canadian jurisdictions to address overlapping multijurisdictional class actions regarding a data breach.

The parties reached a settlement to proceed only with the Ontario national class action and stay the actions in British Columbia, Alberta, Québec, and Nova Scotia.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the consent order dismissing the stay motion in Ontario, allowing the action to proceed subject to bi-annual reporting requirements to the case management judges in the other jurisdictions.

The appellant, a unionized employee of the Ontario Public Service, commenced a civil action against her employer and union alleging workplace discrimination and harassment.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement and was therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

On appeal, the appellant argued that section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code granted the court concurrent jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that section 46.1 does not override the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators where the dispute arises from a collective agreement and no independent civil wrong is pleaded.

The moving party, The Russian Federation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $7,500 payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule the delivery of appeal materials and a case management teleconference.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, commenced a civil action against her employer (the Crown) and her union (AMAPCEO) alleging discrimination and harassment arising from her employment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitration or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) due to the collective agreement.

The court granted the motion, holding that the essential character of the dispute arose entirely from the employment relationship governed by the collective agreement, and the plaintiff's claims did not present an independent civil wrong to "piggyback" human rights claims in court.

The court affirmed that the HRTO remains an available forum for the plaintiff's human rights complaints.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral tribunal's interim award on jurisdiction under Articles 16 and 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

In support of its application, the applicant filed new expert evidence that was not before the arbitral tribunal.

A previous judge had ruled that the new evidence was admissible as of right.

The hearing judge reconsidered this interlocutory ruling and held that he had the authority to do so.

The court concluded that fresh evidence in an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's award on jurisdiction under the Model Law may not be introduced as of right.

Instead, a party must obtain leave by satisfying the test for fresh evidence established in R. v. Palmer.

The applicant, The Russia Federation, brought a motion to disqualify the respondent's expert witness on Russian law, arguing bias and lack of qualifications.

The expert had previously provided evidence for related entities in similar claims against the applicant.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found that the expert's history did not demonstrate a lack of independence, nor did his lack of Russian legal credentials or fluency in Russian negate his demonstrated expertise.

The motion to strike the expert's evidence was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion to admit the reports was allowed.

Appellants brought a proposed class action alleging that respondents conspired to divide the beer market contrary to section 45(1) of the Competition Act through a Framework Agreement signed in 2000, and that a surcharge levied by Brewers Retail on licensees violated the Liquor Control Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the regulated conduct defence was available to the respondents.

The Liquor Control Act authorized the impugned conduct.

The Ontario legislature subsequently enacted retroactive amendments in 2015 to remove any doubt that the conduct was authorized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the regulated conduct defence insulated the respondents from liability and that retroactive legislation could provide authorization for the defence.

The appellants, survivors and family members of victims of the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, brought a class action against Loblaws and Bureau Veritas seeking damages for negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that Bangladeshi law applied (not Ontario law), the claims were statute-barred under Bangladesh's one-year limitation period, and the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on all grounds.

The court also addressed a costs appeal, reducing the costs award by 30% to reflect the public interest component of the claims.