Russell M. Raikes

The appellants, former students of Grenville Christian College, appealed a decision refusing to certify their class action for institutional abuse.

The motions judge had found that all certification criteria were met except for the preferable procedure, concluding that individual issues would overwhelm common ones.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to properly analyze the access to justice barrier and by incorrectly assuming common issues would need to be relitigated.

The Court certified the class action and awarded costs to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondent Diocese in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to certify a class action against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear the appeal regarding the refusal to certify the action against the College, Farnsworth, and the Estate of Haig.

The court directed that the appeal involving those parties be transferred to the Divisional Court.

The plaintiffs, former residential students at Grenville Christian College, moved to certify a class action against the school, its former headmasters, and the Anglican Diocese of Ontario, alleging systemic physical and psychological abuse and religious indoctrination.

The court dismissed the action against the Diocese, finding it plain and obvious that the Diocese owed no duty of care, was not vicariously liable, and had no fiduciary relationship with the students.

The court also dismissed the certification motion against the remaining defendants, concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the common issues of systemic negligence would not significantly advance the individual claims.

Instead, the court suspended the dismissal for six months to allow the plaintiffs to propose a new litigation plan to continue the action as a group of case-managed individual actions.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their solicitor's negligence action.

The appellants alleged that the respondent solicitor, who acted for multiple parties in a corporate restructuring prior to the individual appellant's bankruptcy, failed to recommend independent legal advice and failed to discuss alternative transactions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the solicitor did not breach his fiduciary duty or act negligently, as he took instructions from the appellant's designate, the transactions were straightforward, and the appellant was a sophisticated businessman who understood the documents.

Furthermore, the appellants failed to establish any damages, as the shares and debt involved had no value.

The appellants and the Law Foundation of Ontario sought leave to appeal costs orders made by the case management judge following the dismissal of several proposed class actions against automobile insurers.

The motion judge had awarded costs to the successful insurers, including substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs persisted with unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and deceit to overcome limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding entitlement or scale of costs.

Following a successful appeal that certified the action as a class proceeding, the Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement.

The appellants were awarded costs throughout on a partial indemnity scale.

The Court fixed the costs for the Divisional Court at $60,000 and for the Court of Appeal at $42,500, payable forthwith by the respondents jointly and severally.

The costs of the initial certification motion were referred back to the motion judge.

The appellants were charged with illegal hunting practices on an Indian reserve under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

They argued that a 1955 band council by-law passed under the Indian Act constituted a comprehensive code that ousted the application of the federal Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the two regulatory regimes did not conflict, as compliance with one did not require breach of the other.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellants could be charged under either the Act or the by-law.

The appellants, members of various First Nations, sought to bring a class proceeding against the federal government and church entities for harms suffered at the Mohawk Institute Residential School between 1922 and 1969.

The motion judge and Divisional Court denied certification.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including identifiable classes, common issues such as systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and the preferability of a class action.

The appellant First Nation appealed a decision upholding the validity of a land surrender.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in a brief oral judgment, stating that the sole question was the validity of the surrender and expressing agreement with the reasons of the Court of Appeal.