Rebecca Elswyth Case

The plaintiff brought motions to amend the statement of claim to add her minor children as anonymous plaintiffs with herself as litigation guardian, and to strike portions of the defendants' statement of defence.

The defendants opposed her appointment as litigation guardian, alleging a potential conflict of interest, and opposed striking the pleadings.

The court appointed the plaintiff as litigation guardian, finding no evidence of a conflict.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the statement of defence that pleaded evidence or irrelevant post-incident facts, while allowing paragraphs relevant to the police investigation to remain.

This appeal concerns a class action brought by Mr. Submarine Ltd. franchisees against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. following a 2008 listeria contamination outbreak.

The franchisees claimed damages for economic losses arising from reputational harm allegedly caused by their public association with Maple Leaf during the recall.

The motion judge found that Maple Leaf owed a duty of care to the franchisees both in relation to the supply of fit products and regarding representations about product safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while Maple Leaf may owe a duty to supply safe products, this duty is owed to end consumers, not franchisees, and does not extend to protecting against reputational harm or pure economic losses.

The court also found that Maple Leaf's undertaking regarding product safety did not encompass protection of the franchisees' reputational interests.

The plaintiff sought costs for three contested motions in a class action regarding a listeria outbreak: a motion for leave, a certification motion, and a summary judgment motion.

The defendants argued for no costs or a reduced award, citing divided success and the novelty of the legal issues.

The court found the plaintiff was the successful party overall and that the issues were not novel.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $10,000 for the leave motion, $120,000 for the certification motion, and $20,000 for the summary judgment motion, plus disbursements and HST.

In a class action regarding allegedly illegal bingo licensing fees, the defendants brought a motion to lift an interim protection order that prevented them from sharing the identities of class members who opted out with their municipal clients.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that revealing the identities could harm the charities' fundraising efforts.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found insufficient evidence of a serious threat to the commercial interests of the potential class members.

Emphasizing the open court principle, the court granted the defendants' motion and lifted the protection order.

The plaintiff, a Mr. Sub franchisee, sought to certify a class action against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. and Maple Leaf Consumer Foods Inc. following a listeriosis outbreak in 2008 linked to the defendants' ready-to-eat (RTE) meats, which were exclusively supplied to Mr. Sub franchisees.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, including breach of duty to provide fit products, duty to warn, and negligent misrepresentation, resulting in economic losses such as lost sales, profits, and goodwill.

The defendants challenged the existence of a cause of action, particularly regarding foreseeability, proximity, and policy considerations for economic loss claims.

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied all five certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including disclosing a viable cause of action for economic losses based on negligent supply of dangerous goods and negligent misrepresentation.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the claim was essentially for breach of continuous supply or that policy concerns regarding indeterminate liability should negate a duty of care, noting the close relationship between the parties and the public danger posed by the contaminated product.

The motion to certify the class action was granted.

The plaintiff sought leave of the court to bring its motion for certification of a class proceeding and for its appointment as representative plaintiff, pursuant to s. 2(3)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, after the statutory 90-day period had expired.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the delay.

The court granted leave, finding that the 90-day rule is frequently not strictly observed, there was no evidence of actual prejudice to the defendants (who had preserved documents and were subject to prior investigations), and the court's consent to a timetable for the certification motion implied leave.

The court emphasized that denying leave would be unjust given the circumstances and the defendants' late challenge to the plaintiff's right to bring the motion.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a post-certification decision that dismissed their request to amend the class definition by inserting cut-off dates for three models of allegedly defective defibrillators.

The defendants argued the motions judge erred in placing the burden of proof on them and in finding some basis in fact for the plaintiffs' proposed dates.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, and that the burden was correctly placed on the defendants to justify amending the certification order.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding a defective medical product.

The defendants argued that the pleadings did not satisfy section 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act and that the litigation plan improperly provided for a reference to determine individual issues under section 25.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's decision, and emphasizing the deference owed to judges managing class proceedings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to cancel a hearing for compensation after the original claimant died of causes unrelated to the alleged assault.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the common law principle that a right to compensation terminates with death applies, and section 38(1) of the Trustee Act does not apply to administrative proceedings for compensation from a public fund.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument based on the doctrine of legitimate expectations, finding no evidence of a binding undertaking or official practice by the Board to hold hearings in such circumstances.