McCarthy v. The Canadian Red Cross Society, 2015 ONSC 2123
CITATION: McCarthy v. The Canadian Red Cross Society, 2015 ONSC 2123
COURT FILE NO.: CV-98-143334
COURT FILE NO.: CV-99-162855
DATE: 20150401
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL McCARTHY, CHRISTINE McCARTHY, DEREK MARCHAND
Plaintiffs
– and –
THE CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendants
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Carolyn Filgiano for the Plaintiffs
AND BETWEEN:
MICHAEL McCARTHY, CHRISTINE McCARTHY, DEREK MARCHAND
Plaintiffs
– and –
CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES LIMITED, CONNAUGHT BIOLOCS LIMITED, CONTINENTAL PHARMA CRYOSAN INC., NORTH AMERICAN BIOLOGICALS INC. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Carolyn Filgiano for the Plaintiffs
HEARD: In writing
REASONS FOR DECISION
PERELL, J.
[1] This is a motion for an order approving a Protocol for certain estate claims in this settled class action, which has counterparts in Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec.
[2] The court-approved Settlement Agreement provided compensation for claimants infected with Hepatitis C by blood transfusions before January 1, 1986 and or between July 2, 1990 and September 28, 1998.
[3] The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the filing deadline for deceased claimants is the later of three years after the death of the infected Class Member or two years after the “Implementation Date,” which was August 10, 2007.
[4] The Administrator’s website and the claim package, however, failed to indicate the Implementation Date. Thus, there was no publically available information about the Implementation Date nor was it reasonably possible for the estates of Class Members to ascertain the deadline.
[5] Seventy estate claims filed before June 30, 2010, the initial claim deadline, were rejected because they were filed more than three years after the death of the Class Member and more than two years after the Implementation Date.
[6] Class Counsel has requested a protocol to correct the publication error and to ensure that Class Members are not prejudiced by the administrative failure to clearly state the Implementation Date in the dissemination of information to Class Members.
[7] The defendant Attorney General of Canada takes no position with respect to the motion.
[8] A similar motion was granted by Chief Justice Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. See Killough v. The Canadian Red Cross Society, 2014 BCSC 1789.
[9] I agree with Chief Justice Hinkson that the requested protocol is necessary to ensure that Class Members are not prejudiced by the failure to clearly state the Implementation Date.
[10] I approve the Protocol as requested.
[11] Order to go accordingly.
Perell, J.
Released: April 1, 2015
CITATION: McCarthy v. The Canadian Red Cross Society, 2015 ONSC 2123
COURT FILE NO.: CV-98-143334
COURT FILE NO.: CV-99-162855
DATE: 20150401
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL McCARTHY, CHRISTINE McCARTHY, DEREK MARCHAND
Plaintiffs
– and –
THE CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
MICHAEL McCARTHY, CHRISTINE McCARTHY, DEREK MARCHAND
Plaintiffs
- and -
CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES LIMITED, CONNAUGHT BIOLOCS LIMITED, CONTINENTAL PHARMA CRYOSAN INC., NORTH AMERICAN BIOLOGICALS INC. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
PERELL J.
Released: April 1, 2015