COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-482667CP DATE: 20170525
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KIMBERLEY BABIN Plaintiff – and – BAYER INC., BAYER PHARMA AG, and BAYER OY Defendants
Counsel: Bryan McPhadden for the Plaintiff William McNamara and Irfan Kara for the Defendants
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
HEARD: May 10, 2017
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] In the case at bar, there is a multiplicity of class actions about the same alleged harm. The defendants, Bayer Inc., which is a Canadian corporation, Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer OY, which are foreign corporations, are sued in three proposed national class actions, one in Alberta, one in Québec, and this one in Ontario, in which the plaintiff is Kimberley Babin. In a fourth proposed national class action, Bayer Inc. is sued, also, in Alberta. (There is also an individual plaintiff action against Bayer in Nova Scotia.) A consortium of lawyers acts for the plaintiffs in all four proposed class actions.
[2] The representative plaintiffs in the four proposed class actions are Kimberley Babin in Ontario, Ninon Bertrand in Québec, and Cindy Chrenek and Elizabeth Todd in Alberta. All the proposed representative plaintiffs allege that the defendants are liable for negligence for failing to warn that their contraceptive intrauterine device with the brand name “Mirena” could migrate inside the body causing personal injuries.
[3] The consortium acting for the proposed representative plaintiffs is comprised of: McPhadden Samac Tuovi LLP (actions in Ontario and in Alberta); Lex Group Inc. (the action in Québec), and Docken & Company, formerly Docken Klym (an action in Alberta).
[4] The Ontario, Québec, and one Alberta action were commenced before the consortium was formed, but the law firms for the respective plaintiffs agreed to work together. The law firms formed a consortium, and the consortium decided to prosecute only the class action in Alberta. As a result, the other actions were formally stayed in Québec and informally stayed in Ontario; i.e., in the patois of the class action cognoscenti, the overlapping Québec and Ontario proposed class actions were “parked.”
[5] However, two years ago, there was a change in the consortium’s plans, and McPhadden Samac Tuovi, Ontario counsel, sought to revive the parked Ontario action and Ms. Babin sought to schedule a certification motion of her proposed class action. The defendants, however, objected, and they brought a motion to have the Ontario action formally stayed in favour of the Alberta actions.
[6] There were cross-examinations, a refusals motion, an unsuccessful appeal of the refusals motion, and the defendants’ motion for a stay now comes on for decision.
[7] For the reasons that follow, I grant the defendants’ motion, and I now formally stay the Ontario action subject to further order of this court.
B. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[8] Bayer Pharma AG, which is a German corporation, is the parent of Bayer OY, which is a Finland corporation that manufactures Mirena, a contraceptive intrauterine device. Bayer Pharma AG is also the parent of Bayer Inc., the corporation that sells Mirena in Canada.
[9] Mirena is also sold in the United States, and since at least 2009, the U.S. product monograph has contained a warning that the intrauterine device might migrate in the body. This warning was not found in the Canadian version of the monograph until late 2014.
[10] On June 13, 2013, in Ontario, Ms. Babin commenced her action (Babin v. Bayer Inc.). I was assigned to case manage the proposed national class action. The action was against Bayer Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer OY (collectively “Bayer”). Ms. Babin alleged that Bayer failed to warn of the risk of the intrauterine device migrating from the uterus. The Statement of Claim was served on all of the defendants. Ms. Babin’s counsel of record was McPhadden Samac Tuovi.
[11] On June 26, 2013, in Québec, Mme. Bertrand commenced her action (Bertrand c. Bayer Inc.). Justice Monast of the Superior Court of Québec was assigned to case manage the proposed national class action. The action was against Bayer Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer OY. Mme. Bertrand alleged that Bayer failed to warn of the risk of the intrauterine device migrating from the uterus. The Statement of Claim was served on all of the defendants. Mme. Bertrand’s counsel of record was Lex Group Inc.
[12] Also on June 26, 2013, in Alberta, Cindy Chrenek commenced her action (Chrenek v. Bayer Inc.). Justice Strekaf of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was assigned to case manage the proposed national class action. The action was against Bayer Inc. alone. Ms. Chrenek alleged that Bayer Inc. failed to warn of the risk of the intrauterine device migrating from the uterus. The Statement of Claim was served on Bayer Inc. Ms. Chrenek’s counsel of record was Docken & Company.
[13] On April 2, 2014, in Alberta, Ms. Chrenek delivered an application for certification with supporting affidavit material.
[14] On April 8, 2014, there was a case management conference in Alberta. The minutes of the conference, which are self-explanatory, state:
CASE MANAGEMENT MEETING MINUTES Prior to the case management meeting, the Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Application for Certification and Affidavit of the proposed representative Plaintiff. Mr. Docken had also circulated a proposed timetable leading to a certification hearing. The Court was apprised of the Plaintiff’s intention to file additional material in support of the certification application as well as with respect to the existence of other class proceedings in Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, also seeking to certify a national class. Mr. Leurer indicated that the Defendant was opposed to the concurrent prosecution of multiple actions seeking to certify a national class, and that it was also premature to set a date for certification in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was intending to supplement the record. Mr. Docken confirmed the intention to work with counsel in other provinces to agree on the prosecution of a certification application in one jurisdiction. The parties and the Court discussed the advisability of setting a schedule leading to certification in the light of the fact that the Plaintiff had not filed their complete record in support of certification and uncertainty as to whether the certification application in this action, or one of the actions commenced in another province, would be prosecuted. In the result, the case management meeting was adjourned to 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 on the understanding that:
By May 30, the Plaintiff will have filed and served any additional affidavit evidence relied upon in support of the application to certify this action as a class action;
In the same timeframe, the Plaintiff will have declared whether this action, or an action in one of the other provinces, would be prosecuted to a certification application;
If it is the Plaintiff's intention to prosecute this action to a certification application, prior to the June 24, 2014 case management meeting, the parties will discuss, and attempt to agree on, a schedule of litigation events leading to the hearing of that application.
[15] As appears, the case management conference in Alberta was adjourned to June 24, 2014. However, the conference did not proceed on that date. Rather, the parties needed more time to review the plaintiff’s motion material, and they requested and were granted a further adjournment to a date to be arranged.
[16] During the summer of July 2014, there were discussions between McPhadden Samac Tuovi and Docken & Company about forming a consortium to prosecute a national class action against Bayer. These discussions, along with discussions with Lex Group, culminated in a consortium agreement. The consortium decided to seek certification in Alberta. The case management judges were advised of this development.
[17] In Québec, Justice Monast issued a formal order staying the action. In Ontario, I took no formal step and simply assumed that the national class action would advance in Alberta. At the time, I was unaware that Bayer had originally asked for a permanent stay of the Ontario action but this had been rebuffed by the consortium. At the time, I was not aware that Bayer’s lawyers were told that the plaintiffs would not re-litigate matters decided in another jurisdiction but that the Alberta action would be pursued only if the action proceeded expeditiously in that province. In other words, Ms. Babin’s counsel advised Bayer’s counsel in Ontario that there was no intention to proceed with a national class action in Ontario or Québec provided that matters were progressing in Alberta.
[18] On October 1, 2014, in Alberta, Ms. Todd issued her proposed class action against Bayer (Todd v. Bayer Inc.). Ms. Todd’s counsel of record was McPhadden Samac Tuovi. Later that month, on October 24, 2014, Ms. Todd provided an affidavit as a proposed new representative plaintiff in Ms. Chrenek’s action. In his affidavit for the motion now before the court Mr. Tuovi, of McPhadden Samac Tuovi, explained at paragraphs 18 and 19 the reason for commencing a second national class action in Alberta. He stated:
- Accordingly, from the perspective of their liability, our preference was that the foreign defendants be parties to the litigation. To that end, when we commenced our own action in Alberta in October 2014, we named these defendants in addition to the Canadian defendant. …. We commenced that action when it appeared to us that unexplained delays were impeding the progress of Mr. Docken's Alberta action. Should those delays have proven to be temporary, we could consolidate our action with Mr. Docken's; should they prove to be persistent; however, we would have been able to prosecute our own action in Alberta more diligently.
- If consolidation had proven to be unnecessary (upon the removal of the delays impeding prosecution of Mr. Docken's action) or difficult or impossible, we were content to proceed in Mr. Docken's Alberta action in which no foreign defendants were named: as I have explained, we were primarily interested in the foreign defendants' evidence and could probably obtain it from them as witnesses.
[19] In her Statement of Claim, Ms. Todd alleged that Bayer failed to warn of the risk of the intrauterine device migrating from the uterus. Her Statement of Claim was served on Bayer Inc. However, she has never served her Statement of Claim on Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer OY, which, as mentioned above, were not parties to the other Alberta action.
[20] Under Rule 3.26 of the Alberta Rules of Court, "a statement of claim must be served on the defendant within one year after the date that the statement of claim is filed, unless the Court on application before the one-year time limit expires, grants an extension of time for service." The foreign Bayer corporations have never been served in the Alberta action and no extension was requested before the one-year time limit expired.
[21] Pausing here in the narrative, as of the fall of 2014, Ms. Chrenek’s action was positioned to move forward, but it appears that the consortium turned its attention to consolidating her action with Ms. Todd’s, and it appears that achieving this purpose preoccupied approximately six months. On April 28, 2015, in Alberta, Chrenek v. Bayer Inc. and Todd v. Bayer Inc. were consolidated.
[22] While the Alberta actions were being consolidated, it seems that the consortium also turned its attention to moving forward with the long-outstanding matter of scheduling the certification motion and of the matter that the foreign defendants had not been served in the consolidated proceedings. There were discussions about consolidation in the winter of 2015, but by the summer of 2015, the consortium proposed to defence counsel an agreement whereby the plaintiffs would retain discovery rights against the foreign defendants but the action as against those defendants would be discontinued. Defence counsel did not respond to the proposal.
[23] In August 2015, the consortium made the decision to return to Ontario to prosecute Ms. Babin’s proposed national class action. The court in Alberta has never been advised about this decision and the scheduling of the Alberta certification motion remains outstanding. Bayer has not moved for a stay of the Alberta action.
[24] Following the decision to rouse the Ontario action, Ms. Babin reconstituted the material already filed for the Alberta certification application and on September 25, 2015, the expert retained for the Alberta proceeding swore an affidavit for the Ontario action.
[25] On October 26, 2015, Bayer’s counsel in Alberta raised the issue that Bayer Oy and Bayer Pharma AG had not been served and requested that the Todd Statement of Claim be amended to remove them as parties. The consortium did not respond to the request.
[26] On December 31, 2015, the consortium served a motion record for certification in the Babin action in Ontario. The motion material is substantially similar, if not identical, to the application for certification already served in Alberta.
[27] In March 2016, Ms. Babin arranged a case management conference for the purpose of scheduling the certification motion in Ontario. Bayer responded with a request to schedule a motion to stay Ms. Babin’s action in Ontario as an abuse of process. Bayer submitted that the Alberta action against Bayer Inc. is the only action that should be prosecuted. I agreed to schedule the stay motion now before the court.
[28] In response to Bayer’s motion, Ms. Babin delivered an affidavit sworn by Mr. Tuovi. In his affidavit, Mr. Tuovi explained how it came about that the consortium had first decided to pursue certification in Alberta and then changed course to pursue certification in Ontario. In his affidavit, he deposed:
- …. After the consortium was formed, we were persuaded that the proposed class action could proceed more expeditiously in Alberta than in Ontario. Accordingly, we decided to seek certification of a national class in Alberta. At the request of the defendants, we agreed not to prosecute the Ontario and Quebec actions if it meant re-litigating issues. We did not agree to a stay of any kind in respect of the Quebec or Ontario proceeding. With the passage of time, it became increasingly evident that the Alberta action was not proceeding expeditiously; this caused us to consider, and ultimately decide on, a return to prosecution on behalf of a national class in Ontario.
- Contrary to the allegations made in the defendants' Notice of Motion herein, the decision to return to Ontario was driven entirely by concerns for expediency and had little to do with the fact that the time to serve the foreign defendants in the Alberta proceeding would come to expire in a few months.
- When discussing with Mr. Docken the various Mirena class actions commenced across Canada and the possibility of our working together again, he asked whether we would consider pursuing the Mirena class action nationally in Alberta because, when we had worked together in the past we pursued class actions only through Ontario. Mr. Docken also expressed confidence that the certification motion in Alberta could be heard expeditiously and probably sooner than in Ontario. We agreed in June 2014 to finalize our consortium agreement with Docken Klym and to seek national certification in Alberta.
- As I have stated, the Alberta action did not move forward expeditiously. Accordingly, the certification motion did not come to be heard there as promptly as expected when we originally agreed to suspend our Ontario action in favour of continuing in Alberta.
- Throughout 2015, we were increasingly apprehensive that certification would not be heard anytime soon. We were coming around to the view that the delays impeding progress of Mr. Docken's Alberta litigation would not be overcome soon and were not temporary. No substantive progress was seemingly being made in consolidating our Alberta action with Docken Klym's Alberta action, and the defendants were insisting that service of the Alberta claim on the foreign defendants be a pre-condition to any discussion of a dismissal of the action against those foreign defendants in exchange for documentary production.
- Accordingly, by the end of June 2015, we were giving serious thought to resuming our prosecution of the Mirena litigation in Ontario. In July 2015, while we were considering the merits of such an approach, but out of an abundance of caution, we served our Alberta proceeding on the Canadian defendant (on July 10, 2015) and considered an order extending the time to serve the foreign defendants in the Alberta proceeding. As our Alberta claim had been filed on October 1, 2014, the 1-year deadline to serve the foreign defendants under the Rules of Court of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench would expire on October 1, 2015.
- In August 2015, in light of the continuing lack of progress in Alberta, we decided to pursue certification in Ontario instead of Alberta (and Quebec). In 2013, and before entering into the consortium agreement, our certification record in Ontario had been close to completion. Also, all of the foreign defendants had been served with the Ontario proceeding.
- We then undertook efforts to complete our Ontario certification record. To do so, we intended to use the same expert as had been retained relative to the Alberta action. Her affidavit in the Ontario action was sworn September 25, 2015, making clear that our decision to proceed in Ontario, and not Alberta, had been made sometime prior to that date and certainly prior to the October 1, 2015 deadline for service of the Alberta pleading on the foreign defendants. I observe that this time limit is in reference to service and not to a statutory limitation period.
- I note that, if our decision was based only on a desire to avoid any difficulties that might arise from the failure to serve the foreign defendants with our Alberta process, it would have been considerably more expedient and economical for us simply to seek to have extended the October 2015 deadline to serve the foreign defendants in our Alberta proceeding, rather than to have reconstituted our certification record in Ontario. Indeed, we had drafted an extension order as early as July 2015.
C. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
[29] During the course of the hearing, there was a discussion of how to characterize Bayer’s motion to stay the Ontario action. However, because I shall not be deciding this motion based on which party has the onus of proof, nothing turns on whether the motion is characterized as Bayer’s motion to stay the Ontario action or on whether the motion is characterized as Ms. Babin’s request to lift the informal stay of the action and to schedule a certification motion.
[30] I also shall not be deciding the motion on the basis of the alleged agreement between the consortium and Bayer under which Ms. Babin agreed to an informal stay of the Ontario action but reserved the right to have the stay lifted if she was not satisfied by the progress of the action in Alberta and under which alleged agreement Bayer was precluded or estopped from opposing the lifting of the stay should the Alberta action not proceed expeditiously. The court was not a party to the agreement, if that was what it was, and I shall decide the stay motion on its merits.
[31] I also shall not be deciding the motion on the basis of the parties pointing an abuse of process finger at one-another. It was not an abuse of process for Ms. Babin to start her action in Ontario and then park it to have her counsel participate in a consortium pursuing her claim in national class actions commenced in other provinces. It was not an abuse of process for Bayer to ask to be sued in only one national class action, and it is not an abuse of process for it to bring a formal motion to stay the Ontario action after acquiescing to an informal stay of the Ontario action, which the consortium now seeks to have lifted.
[32] I shall be deciding this motion on the basis that I discussed in the refusals motion that I decided in the run up to the motion now before the court, which reasons I incorporate by reference. See Babin v. Bayer Inc., 2016 ONSC 5069, leave to appeal refused, 2016 ONSC 8017 (Div. Ct.).
[33] Thus, I shall be deciding this motion on the basis that there are principled solutions to resolve the problem of a multiplicity of proceedings arising from multiple multi-jurisdictional class actions, in this case four national class actions. (I also discuss the problems of multiple multi-jurisdiction class actions in Kowalyshyn v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., 2016 ONSC 3819.)
[34] In my Reasons for Decision in the refusals motion, I referred to the work of the Uniform Law Commission to define a principled approach to resolving what, practically speaking, is a forum conveniens jurisdiction problem where one or more similarly situated plaintiffs brings similar national class actions in one or more jurisdictions. In particular, because the Uniform Law Commission’s recommendations described relevant matters to consider on a motion to stay when there are multiple national class actions in multiple jurisdictions, I referred to the following provisions of the Commission’s proposed legislation:
4(2) If a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding or a proposed multi-jurisdictional class proceeding has been commenced elsewhere in Canada that involves the same or similar subject matter to that of the proceeding being considered for certification, the court must determine whether it would be preferable for some or all of the claims of the proposed class members to be resolved in that proceeding. 4(3) When making a determination under subsection (2), the court must (a) be guided by the following objectives: (i) ensuring that the interests of all parties in each of the relevant jurisdictions are given due consideration, (ii) ensuring that the ends of justice are served, (iii) where possible, avoiding irreconcilable judgments, (iv) promoting judicial economy; and (b) consider all relevant factors, including the following: (i) the alleged basis of liability, including the applicable laws, (ii) the stage each of the proceedings has reached, (iii) the plan for the proposed multi-jurisdictional class proceeding, including the viability of the plan and the capacity and resources for advancing the proceeding on behalf of the proposed class; (iv) the location of class members and class representatives in the various proceedings, including the ability of class representatives to participate in the proceedings and to represent the interests of class members, (v) the location of evidence and witnesses.
[35] Applying the relevant factors to the circumstances of the immediate case, I begin the analysis by noting that there is no reason to second-guess the initial decisions to stay the actions in Québec, formally by Justice Monast, and in Ontario, informally by me. Those decisions avoided a multiplicity of proceedings. Speaking for the Ontario court, there was and is no reason to think that Ontario citizens as parties to a national class action would not be well served by the courts of Alberta (or Québec) in a national product liability class action about the defendants’ alleged failure to warn about the harm that could be caused by their product.
[36] The next analytical point to make for the immediate case is that it does not lie in the mouth of the consortium to second guess their own decision to prosecute the class action in Alberta and thereby avoid the multiplicity of proceedings of overlapping class actions in Ontario and Québec. The consortium had no entitlement to hedge its procedural choices. Having chosen to prosecute the putative Class Members’ claims in Alberta, the consortium had no entitlement by agreement or estoppel to reserve the right to return to Ontario because it might think that the Alberta action was not proceeding expeditiously. Such a reservation is either forum shopping or reneging on the consortium agreement should there be a falling out or disappointing performance by the members of the consortium. Once the consortium selected Alberta as the forum for the national class action it became their responsibility to advance the action in Alberta effectively and efficiently and not to reserve the right to have a redo or take a second stab at access to justice in another province.
[37] In this last regard, the consortium seemed to have started off well enough, and a national class action had progressed to the point where the consortium had delivered the certification material. The consortium should have and could have and can still request Justice Strekaf, with whom I have never communicated and who seems to have been kept in the dark or inadequately advised about the status of the Alberta action, to schedule the certification motion.
[38] In hindsight, the consortium, which had already served its certification material, would have been better advised to ask Justice Strekaf to reschedule the long-adjourned case conference to set a schedule rather that reconstituting the motion material and asking the Ontario court to set a schedule. Further, the consortium did not need to have hindsight to know that they had only themselves to blame for the slow progress of the Alberta action. The consortium never did report any problems to Justice Strekaf and never requested her case management direction to schedule the Alberta certification motion.
[39] The consortium denies that the real reason that it wished to revive the Ontario action was not its disappointment in the progress of the Alberta action but to address the problem that the foreign Bayer companies had not been served in the consolidated Alberta action and it was apparently too late to do so under the Alberta Rules of Court. Further, the consortium submits that in light of the alleged agreement about the forum for the national class action, the foreign Bayer companies cannot afford themselves of the juridical advantage of their not being parties to the Alberta action as a reason for staying the Ontario action in which they do not enjoy this juridical advantage.
[40] For the sake of argument, if I accept that the disappointment in the progress being made in Alberta was the consortium’s genuine reason for seeking to revive the action in Ontario, then on this assumption, in my opinion, the consortium would be obliged to first return to Justice Strekaf and deal with the status of the consolidated Alberta action and the status of the parties to it before returning to Ontario. It might be the case that Justice Strekaf could have and could still deal with the problem that the foreign Bayer defendants had not been served in the consolidated action. It requires court authorization to discontinue or stay a proposed class action, and to this day, Justice Strekaf has not been asked to address these issues. Nor has she been asked to address the problem of a multiplicity of national class actions. It strikes me as all of uncomfortable, discourteous and wanting in comity for this court to decide these issues that could and should be addressed first by the Alberta court. I, therefore, refuse to exercise my discretion to lift the informal stay in Ontario, and I grant a formal stay until further order of this court.
[41] Conversely, for the sake of argument, if I accept that the genuine reason for the requested revival of the Ontario action is that all of the Bayer defendants have been served in Ontario, then I do not regard that circumstance as a justification for reviving the Ontario action. Once again, I, therefore, refuse to exercise my discretion to lift the informal stay in Ontario, and I grant a formal stay until further order of this court.
[42] I have four additional reasons for formally staying the Ontario action.
[43] First, in exercising my discretion in what amounts to a forum conveniens motion, I should give due consideration to the interests of all parties in each of the relevant jurisdictions. In this regard, I note that if the foreign defendants have achieved a juridical advantage in Alberta, then they have done nothing to disentitle themselves from it. Once again, the consortium which had time to serve the foreign Bayer defendants have only themselves to blame.
[44] Second, there may in fact be no juridical advantage in Alberta, because I am not convinced that the service problem cannot be resolved given that the commencement of the Todd action at least suspended the running of limitation periods. And again, this is a matter that should have been presented first to the court in Alberta. The point here is that the Alberta action is as well advanced as the Ontario action and there may be no juridical advantage to either side in either jurisdiction.
[45] Third, I am not convinced that the Class Members are harmed by the absence of the foreign Bayer companies in the Alberta action. In its affidavit in support of the motion to consolidate the Alberta actions, the consortium incorrectly suggested that the foreign defendants are necessary parties. However, there is no suggestion that Bayer Inc. is judgment proof, and while the foreign defendants are proper parties, they are not necessary parties. Rather, all the Bayer defendants are sued for their several liability, but the Chrenek action or the consolidated Chrenek-Todd action can properly proceed just against Bayer Inc. The true reason that the consortium wishes to keep the foreign Bayer defendants in an action is a matter of convenience, because the joinder provides the most convenient method to obtain discovery evidence.
[46] Indeed, the consortium itself suggested letting the Bayer foreign defendants out of the Alberta action provided that the evidence was made available from them. The Bayer defendants did nothing wrong in rejecting this neither fish nor fowl proposition. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the class action in Alberta, which is essentially built on the patent difference in the warning in the Canadian product monograph and the U.S. product monograph, is imperiled by want of evidence. Moreover, there are techniques to obtain discovery evidence from third parties in appropriate cases. In other words, there is no reason to favour Ontario as the forum conveniens.
[47] Fourth, the matter of juridical advantage should have been dealt with, if at all, when the consortium decided to prosecute the class action in Alberta. It is to encourage forum shopping to permit the consortium to revisit the forum issue because of a self-inflicted procedural wound that may not be much more than a matter of facilitating the gathering of discovery evidence.
D. CONCLUSION
[48] For the above reasons, I stay the action in Ontario until further order of this court.
[49] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they may make submissions in writing beginning with Bayer’s submissions within 20 days of the release of these Reasons for Decision followed by Ms. Babin’s submissions within a further 20 days.
Perell, J.
Released: May 25, 2017
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-482667CP DATE: 20170525 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KIMBERLEY BABIN Plaintiff – and – BAYER INC., BAYER PHARMA AG, and BAYER OY Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION PERELL J. Released: May 25, 2017