Sarah J. Armstrong

Following the dismissal of the defendant insurers' motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions pending the determination of certification in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs requested $86,589, which the court found excessive for a relatively simple stay motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) and considering proportionality, the court fixed costs at $35,000 all-inclusive, payable by the defendant insurers.

The defendants appealed the certification of a class action claiming intrusion upon seclusion following a massive data breach by third-party hackers.

The certification judge had allowed the claim to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the novel claim would fail.

The Divisional Court majority allowed the appeal and set aside the certification of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, holding that the tort requires an actual intrusion by the defendant, not merely a failure to prevent an intrusion by others.

The plaintiffs' economic interests were adequately protected by the tort of negligence.

The defendant insurers brought a motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions for COVID-19 business interruption losses pending the certification of a related class action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was overlap in issues and facts, staying the individual actions would cause significant injustice and prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had legitimate reasons for pursuing their claims individually and expeditiously.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $5,000,000 settlement in a class proceeding against a Children's Aid Society regarding a privacy breach where confidential client information was leaked online.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee of approximately $1.6 million plus disbursements, applying the Smith Estate factors, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff to be paid from counsel's fees.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought unsuccessful motions for an injunction and for refusals.

The Capital One defendants sought costs of $135,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued they should be awarded costs despite losing, claiming they achieved their objective.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding their motions were ill-advised and meritless.

Costs were awarded to the Capital One defendants in the amount of $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach brought motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examinations of two affiants and an omnibus motion to strike out various affidavits, factum paragraphs, and a sealing motion.

The court dismissed the refusals motions, finding the questions asked were beyond the narrow scope of the underlying motions (an injunction motion and a sealing motion) and were properly refused.

The court also dismissed the omnibus motion, finding no reason to strike the evidence or alter the timetable for the upcoming jurisdiction and certification motions.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a $1 million settlement in a privacy class action against a technology company regarding the collection of cell phone data.

Because individual class members could not be identified, the settlement provided no direct compensation to the class, instead directing funds to a cy-près recipient (the Law Foundation) after payment of class counsel fees.

The court approved the settlement as the best possible outcome given the unmanageability of the class, but reduced class counsel's requested fees from $333,333 to $300,000 to reflect the lack of direct recovery for class members.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a certification order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is available against collectors and custodians of private information when that information is improperly accessed by a third party, even if the defendants allegedly acted recklessly.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $11,300, left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding involving product liability claims against the manufacturers of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for defective design because they did not identify a specific alternative design.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that regulatory advisories provided 'some basis in fact' to certify the common issue of whether the defendants breached their duty to warn learned intermediaries of the risks associated with the filters.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Equifax arising from a massive data breach where hackers accessed the personal information of Canadian consumers.

Equifax opposed certification of several claims, arguing that it was plain and obvious they would fail because Equifax was a victim of the hack, not the perpetrator.

The court rejected Equifax's objections, finding that the law on intrusion upon seclusion, breach of provincial privacy statutes, breach of contract, and consumer protection was not settled in the context of a database defendant allegedly recklessly enabling a hacker attack.

The court certified the proceeding as a class action.

The plaintiffs in two proposed class actions sought court approval under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to dismiss their actions against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) with prejudice and without costs, and to discontinue the actions against the non-settling defendants without prejudice and without costs.

This motion was brought to implement a $30 million settlement reached with PwC in a parallel, national class action proceeding in Québec, which had already been approved by the Québec Superior Court.

The court granted the requested orders, finding that the interests of the putative class members in Ontario would not be prejudiced, as they could participate in the Québec settlement and broad notice had been provided regarding the impact on their rights.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent to certify a class action against the defendant technology company for settlement purposes.

The action alleges that the defendant intentionally invaded the privacy of Android phone users in Canada by accessing and collecting their location history without consent, constituting an intrusion upon seclusion.

The court found that the requirements under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting the identifiable class, common issues, and adequacy of the representative plaintiffs.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes and approved the notice of settlement hearing.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the manufacturers of Cook IVC filters, alleging negligent design and failure to warn of risks associated with the medical devices.

The court dismissed the certification motion.

While the plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class and representative plaintiff criteria, and pleaded a valid cause of action for failure to warn, they failed to plead a valid cause of action for design negligence.

Crucially, the court found no 'some basis in fact' for the existence of any common issues regarding either design defect or duty to warn, as the evidence did not identify a specific design defect or inadequacy in the warnings provided to physicians.

Consequently, the preferable procedure criterion was also not met.

This appeal concerns an auditor's liability action arising from the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The appellants, three Fairfield feeder funds incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, invested in Madoff's company and suffered losses when the fraud was revealed in December 2008.

The funds sued PricewaterhouseCoopers for breach of contract and negligence in auditing their financial statements for 2006 and 2007, claiming damages of approximately $2.5 billion.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that no damages were suffered, applying the Livent damages methodology.

The appellants appealed on five grounds, all involving findings of fact or mixed fact and law regarding the calculation of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's analysis.

This decision addresses several procedural and evidentiary motions within a proposed class action.

M.M. sought to discontinue her action against Ms. Denham.

The Society sought to convert its crossclaim against Ms. Denham into a third-party claim, convert Ms. Denham's crossclaim into a counterclaim, have the third-party action case managed in Toronto with the class action, and obtain a sealing order.

Ms. Denham opposed the Toronto case management and requested a transfer to Perth/East Region.

The court granted the sealing order, M.M.'s discontinuance, the conversion of claims, and the joint case management/trial.

Crucially, the court conditionally transferred the class action and third-party proceedings to the East Region, finding no advantage to Toronto management beyond counsel convenience and significant inconvenience to Ms. Denham.