COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00643488-00CP
DATE: 20220128
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
WORKMAN OPTOMETRY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 1298928 ONTARIO LTD., THE SUIT SHOP CO. LTD., 2328867 ONTARIO INC. (o/a BOOSTER JUICE 369, BOOSTER JUICE 388, BOOSTER JUICE 375, AND BOOSTER JUICE 452), 2635774 ONTARIO INC. (o/a BOOSTER JUICE 275), 2660364 ONTARIO INC. (o/a BOOSTER JUICE 200), IN HARMONY DANCE & WELLNESS LTD., RANA TAJI OPTOMETRY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, and SCOTIAN ISLE BAKED GOODS INC.
Plaintiffs
– and –
CERTAS HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, CO-OPERATORS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, ECONOMICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERATED INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANDA, GORE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLYOD’S SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. LNP2210, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLYOD’S SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO.SR040046, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLYOD’S SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. GASS1300, NORTHBRIDGE GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, NOVEX INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, SGI CANADA INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., THE DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THE WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and WYNWARD INSURANCE GROUP
Defendants
See Schedule “A” attached to this Endorsement
HEARD: November 30 and December 1, 2021
endorsement
MCEWEN, J.
[1] This Motion concerns litigation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, both individual proceedings and class action proceedings (the “Coverage Proceedings”), have been brought by thousands of policy holders against numerous insurers seeking coverage for alleged business interruption losses.
[2] The plaintiffs and defendants in this action (the “Workman Class Action”) negotiated an agreement which, amongst other things, certified the action as a class proceeding to determine three common questions (the “Common Questions”) as follows:
a. Can the presence of the SARS CoV-2 virus or its variants cause physical loss or damage to property within the meaning of the business interruption provisions of each Defendant’s property insurance wordings?
b. Can an order of a civil authority in respect of business activities that was made due to the SARS CoV-2 virus or its variants cause physical loss or damage to property within the meaning of the business interruption provisions of each Defendant’s property insurance wordings?
c. If the answer to either of the first two questions is “yes”, are there any exclusions in any of the Defendants’ property insurance wordings that would result in coverage for such loss or damage being excluded?
[3] The defendants in the Workman Class Action (the “Moving Parties”), supported by the plaintiffs in the Workman Class Action seek an order, generally, directing a joint adjudication and common case management of the Common Questions with approximately 79 other proceedings advanced by approximately 2,000 plaintiffs (collectively the “Overlapping Proceedings”). The Moving Parties submit that the Overlapping Proceedings, which include the Workman Class Action, involve claims for business interruption losses arising out of the pandemic and engage one or more of the Common Questions. Ultimately, this would result in a joint trial on the Common Questions.
[4] It bears noting that the Overlapping Proceedings comprise the majority, but not all, of the Coverage Proceedings. Even if the Moving Parties are successful, there are approximately 17 additional actions (not included in the Overlapping Proceedings) that will proceed separately outside the proposed joint adjudication. In those actions the parties have either not confirmed a willingness to proceed as proposed by the Moving Parties (5 actions) or, according to the Moving Parties, the actions do not engage the Common Questions or only tangentially engage the Common Questions (12 actions). It also bears noting that the parties to the Workman Class Action have entered into agreements with counsel in other actions who have agreed to hold their matters in abeyance pending the outcome of any joint adjudication of the Overlapping Proceedings. There are approximately 7 such agreements in place
[5] With respect to the issue of joint adjudication of the Overlapping Proceedings, the Moving Parties’ motion is opposed by a number of plaintiffs represented by McCarthy Tétrault LLP (the “McCarthy’s Plaintiffs”) who have commenced 72 actions against various insurers. The McCarthy’s Plaintiffs consist of approximately 1,800 dentists and 100 physiotherapists. The motion is also opposed by another dentist, Dr. Jonah Marks Dentistry Professional Corporation (“Marks”) and Kernels Popcorn Limited (“Kernels”) who have brought claims against their insurers.
[6] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing the Moving Parties’ request for joint adjudication and common case management.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[7] Shortly after the Workman Class Action was commenced, Justice Belobaba was appointed as the Case Management Judge of the Workman Class Action. He was also appointed as Case Management Judge of the other related litigation including other class actions, many of the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs, Marks and Kernels.
[8] On August 24, 2021, I accepted the request to transfer the Workman Class Action from the Class Action List to the Commercial List. I did so on the basis that the Workman Class Action has national scope (outside of Quebec). Additionally, amongst other things, the Workman Class Action involves enormous collective claims that will likely be measured in the billions of dollars, has wide-ranging ramifications for Canadian businesses and involves other substantial commercial dimensions which will result in wide-ranging ramifications for participants in the Canadian insurance industry.
[9] It is important to note, however, that it was only the Workman Class Action that was approved for transfer to the Commercial List with other actions remaining under the case management of Justice Belobaba.
[10] Subsequent to the transfer, the Moving Parties brought this motion which would allow for the joint adjudication of the Overlapping Proceedings with a judge of the Commercial List providing case management for all of the actions including those currently managed by Justice Belobaba.
ANALYSIS
[11] During the motion, the parties raised numerous arguments as to whether or not the relief sought by the Moving Parties ought to be granted.
[12] It is unnecessary to review each and every argument. In my view, the motion ought to be dismissed primarily for three discrete reasons which I will review below.
The Decision of Justice Belobaba dated May 27, 2021 Ought to be Afforded Deference
[13] Prior to the Workman Class Action being transferred to the Commercial List, Justice Belobaba heard a motion in April 2021 that is very relevant to the within motion brought by the Moving Parties. The motion before Justice Belobaba was brought only by four insurers in the Workman Class Action. It sought a stay of the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ Actions until the certification of the Workman Class Action had been decided.
[14] In his Reasons, dated May 27, 2021, Justice Belobaba dismissed the insurers’ motion and declined their request to stay the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ Actions: see Workman Optometry v. Aviva Insurance, 2021 ONSC 3843.
[15] Justice Belobaba first found that he had jurisdiction to stay the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ Actions under s.13 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (the “CPA”), ss. 106 and 107(1)(e)(i) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, and r.6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
[16] In his subsequent analysis, Justice Belobaba accepted that there was substantial overlap of issues between the Workman Class Action and the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ Actions, that they evolved out of the same factual background, and that there would be some duplication of judicial and legal resources if the Workman Class Action and the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ Actions proceeded in tandem. Nonetheless, Justice Belobaba was of the view that there was “an abundance of…evidence” that there would be injustice or prejudice to the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs if their actions were stayed.
[17] The injustice or prejudice to the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs included, amongst other things, that the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs were well informed litigants who believe they have substantial insurance claims, and that they wish for a speedy resolution in which they can control all aspects of their lawsuit including settlement discussions. He also held that there was no prejudice to the insurers involved in the motion which, as noted, are defendants in the Workman Class Action.
[18] The McCarthy’s Plaintiffs, supported by Marks and Kernels, submit that the motion before me is an abuse of process and the doctrine of res judicata applies. They argue the Moving Parties are attempting to relitigate a key outcome of the motion before Justice Belobaba – that being the issue of injustice and prejudice. They alternatively submit that the motion is an abuse of the Court’s process, should not be tolerated, and further is a collateral attack on Justice Belobaba’s decision.
[19] The Moving Parties disagree. They submit that their proposed joint adjudication process builds on Justice Belobaba’s observations concerning the overlap between the Overlapping Proceedings. They further argue that none of the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ submissions are meritorious given the Moving Parties do not seek a stay before me, but rather an orderly joint adjudication of the Common Questions in all of the proceedings which the Moving Parties seek to include in the joint adjudication process.
[20] I agree with the Moving Parties that their motion does not constitute an abuse of process or a collateral attack on Justice Belobaba’s decision. The parties to the motion before me are not identical to the ones before Justice Belobaba, the Workman Class Action has now been certified and the relief sought is different.
[21] It is my view, however, that I should afford deference to Justice Belobaba’s decision as the Case Management Judge notwithstanding the evolution of the Workman Class Action. Justice Belobaba, as Case Management Judge, dealt with a very similar type of motion to the one now before me. He determined that real prejudice or injustice existed in refusing to grant the stay. Even though the motion before me does not deal with the stay but rather joint adjudication, the same principles are in play, i.e. the ability of well-informed individual litigants to pursue their individual actions for legitimate reasons, and under their control.
[22] This dovetails with existing jurisprudence which has held that the CPA is not intended to prevent, or impede, actions by individuals for no other reason than they are, or may be, members of a putative class in an action commenced by another party. This includes an individual not wanting to wait for the outcome of a class action proceeding: see Dumoulin v. Ontario (Ontario Realty Corp.), [2004] O.J. No. 2778, at para. 8; Vaeth v. North American Palladium Ltd., 2016 ONSC 5015, [2016] O.J. No. 4216, at para. 56.
[23] I was not aware of Justice Belobaba’s decision at the time I approved the transfer of the Workman Class Action to the Commercial List. I am not casting aspersions in the direction of the Moving Parties, but the issue of how to deal with other proceedings was only generally raised with me when the matter was transferred to the Commercial List. In all of the circumstances this motion preferably should have been brought before Justice Belobaba given his earlier decision. As this was not the case, given the similarity between the two motions, I believe that Justice Belobaba’s decision ought to be afforded deference.
[24] To do otherwise would essentially result in a different decision in similar circumstances. It would further remove Justice Belobaba from his role as the Case Management Judge and pass it to me. I am not prepared to do this given the history of this matter and his longstanding involvement with the various actions in which he has made a number of significant decisions. In approving the Workman Class Action for the Commercial List I was not made aware of the ramifications vis-à-vis Justice Belobaba’s above noted decision and participation as Case Management Judge.
The McCarthy’s Plaintiffs, Marks and Kernels Ought to be Allowed to Proceed Independently of the Workman Class Action
[25] In addition to affording Justice Belobaba’s decision deference, I agree with his general proposition that the individual actions ought to be allowed to proceed. Justice Belobaba’s reasons still resonate and I repeat and rely upon his findings, including the case law he relies upon, at paras. 8-22 of his decision.
[26] It further bears noting that in Northfield Capital Corp. v. Aurelian Resources Inc. (2007) 2007 CanLII 6917 (ON SC), 84 O.R. (3d) 748, (S.C.), at para. 37, Justice Ground, in refusing to consolidate individual actions with a class proceeding (as is the case here), held that “to order consolidation or trial together is tantamount to depriving the Plaintiffs of their right to opt out of the [class action].” A similar result occurred in the British Columbia Supreme Court case of Watt v. Health Sciences Association of British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 512, at para. 49, where the Court refused to consolidate an individual action with a class action and found that “the weight of authority is against such joinder.”
[27] The Moving Parties do not have any Canadian case law to support their position. They largely rely on international jurisprudence that involves procedural schemes that are different from the CPA. Based on the foregoing, I agree with the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’, Marks’ and Kernels’ submissions that the order sought by the Moving Parties would inappropriately undermine the Plaintiffs’ right to opt out of the class proceedings under s.9 of the CPA.
Bifurcation and Delay
[28] I appreciate the Moving Parties’ legitimate desire to streamline the Overlapping Proceedings and have them determined in a fair, efficient and effective manner particularly given that the issues involved in the Coverage Proceedings will very likely be subject to appeal. There are, however, a number of additional reasons why I do not believe that the proposal set out by the Moving Parties ought to be allowed.
[29] First, I agree with the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs that the motion for joint adjudication would be tantamount to bifurcation of the issues in the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ Actions. The Moving Parties’ proposed plan would first see the Common Questions tried. Thereafter, at the conclusion of those issues (and potentially the appeals that could result), the parties in the other actions, including the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs, could pursue their own individual issues. This would amount to a denial of the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ and other plaintiffs’ rights to have all of their matters dealt with at the same time.
[30] The case law is consistent that bifurcation remains the exception, not the rule and that consent is generally required: see Duggan v. Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2020 ONCA 788, 153 O.R. (3d) 465, at paras. 29, 31, and 38-39. None of the plaintiffs opposing this motion consent. Further, I agree that joint adjudication would delay the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs, Marks and Kernels in having their matters finally adjudicated. All of these cases are further advanced than the Workman Class Action.
[31] Second, the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs seek to advance their actions by way of three test cases, two of which are currently being managed by Justice Belobaba. The outcome of the test cases will likely determine the fate of the remaining McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ Actions. The plan put forth by the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs is a sensible one and allows them to pursue all of their claims not only in contract but also in bad faith, as well as their claims for damages. Further, the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs, as well as Marks and Kernels, claim that their cases arise from the unique policy wordings and business structures not shared by most other plaintiffs. I do not propose to conduct a complex analysis of the various policies in play, but it is fair to say that the policy wordings are not identical and there may well be unique considerations for the trial judge to consider. Certainly, the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs’ claims involving dentists raises unique challenges including requirements imposed by health regulators.
[32] Third, it bears repeating that there are other cases that the Moving Parties do not seek to have subjected to their motion for joint adjudication. As noted, there are 5 such actions where neither the plaintiffs nor defendants have confirmed a willingness to move for joint adjudication.
[33] There are also 12 other actions where the matters are described by the Moving Parties as not engaging the Common Questions or only potentially engaging the Common Questions and there are 7 actions that are being formally or informally held in abeyance.
[34] One of the other actions in which the Moving Parties submit involves issues not engaged by the Common Questions is the case of DentalCorp. Health Services ULC v. Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. et al., Court File No. CV-20-00643385-00CL. I have dealt with that case. It is scheduled to proceed to trial in June 2022. Of significance is the fact that the plaintiff in that action is a dental corporation that seeks significant damages against its insurer and insurance broker for damages arising out of a business interruption claim which forced the plaintiff, allegedly, to close substantially all of its 375 dental practices in March 2020. This is but one example of a similar action that will proceed to trial far in advance of either the Workman Class Action or the McCarthy’s Plaintiffs, Marks and Kernels actions.
[35] Inevitably, there will be a number of different actions proceeding at different times. I do not agree that only those chosen by the Moving Parties ought to be forced into a joint adjudication.
[36] Based on the foregoing, therefore, I do not see a compelling reason as to why the McCarthy’s, Marks or Kernels plaintiffs ought to be forced into joint adjudication.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
[37] Even if my analysis is incorrect and the Moving Parties were successful on this motion, it would result in the transfer of all of the Overlapping Proceedings to the Commercial List. The Commercial List would therefore assume management of all of the Overlapping Proceedings, not only with respect to the trial of the Common Questions, but also with respect to any potential resulting trials concerning some of the other Overlapping Proceedings with respect to issues of unique policy wordings, damages and other discrete issues. It would also have the Commercial List deal with all related motions and case conferences concerning the Overlapping Proceedings.
[38] Such a transfer necessarily engages the provisions of ss. 1(m) of the “Consolidated Practice Direction Concerning the Commercial List”, (July 1, 2014) and I must conduct an analysis as to whether the Overlapping Proceedings should be listed on the Commercial List. In this regard, as per ss. 1(m), I am to take into account a number of factors including the current and expected case load of matters before the Commercial List. Given the sheer volume of cases that are currently on the Commercial List and expected during the pandemic, and the resulting demands upon the Commercial List, I would have exercised my discretion to decline the transfer of the remaining Overlapping Proceedings which, in and of themselves, will require a tremendous amount of judicial resources.
[39] Last, although it is not unusual for actions to proceed at different paces concerning significant issues of nationwide importance I do agree with the Moving Parties that the various actions, which deal with complex and significant litigation involving thousands of policy holders should proceed, as much as possible, in a coordinated manner insofar as hearing dates are concerned.
[40] The parties in the various actions can seek coordination between the Class Action List and the Commercial List in due course to determine whether some coordination is possible, particularly with respect to hearing dates. Alternatively, the Workman Class Action can seek permission to return it to the Class Action List.
DISPOSITION
[41] For the reasons above, the motion is dismissed.
[42] If the parties cannot agree upon the issue of costs, they may schedule a 30-minute case conference with me to determine further steps.
McEwen, J.
Released: January 28, 2022
Schedule “A”
Workman Optometry et al. v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance et al.
LIST OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL (WORKMAN MOTION)
Moving Parties
• Intact, Novex and RSA
FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP
2400 – 33 Bay Street
Bay Adelaide Centre, Box 20
Toronto ON M5H 2T6
Sarah J. Armstrong (LSO #47747G) sarmstrong@fasken.com
Tel: 416-863-3452
David C. Rosenbaum (LSO #25102F) drosenbaum@fasken.com
Tel: 416-868-3516
Rachel Laurion (LSO#67831R)
Tel: 416-868-3460
Daanish Samadmoten (LSO #57918O) dsamadmoten@fasken.com
Tel: 416-863-7823
• Dominion
BENNETT JONES LLP
3400 One First Canadian Place
PO Box 130
Toronto, ON M5X 1A4
Cheryl Woodin (LSO #40720P) woodinc@bennetjones.com
Tel: 416-777-6550
Joseph Blinick (LSO #65325B)
Tel: 416-777-4805
Gannon Beaulne (LSO #63948V) beaulneg@bennetjones.com
Tel : 417-777-4805
THOMAS GOLD PETTINGILL LLP
1800 -150 York Street
Toronto ON M5H 3S5
Thomas Donnelly (LSO #42228J)
Tel: 416-507-1866 tdonnelly@tgplawyers.com
Joyce Tam (LSO #60301I)
Tel: 416-507-1833
• Economical
OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP
6200 — One First Canadian Place Toronto ON M5X 1B8
Mark Gelowitz (LSO #31857J)
Tel: 416-862-4743
Laura Fric (LSO #36545Q)
Tel: 416-862-5899
Mark Sheeley (LSO #66473O)
• Continental Casualty Company
DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP
155 Wellington Street West
37th Floor
Toronto ON M5V 3J7
Kent Thomson (LSO #24264J)
Tel: 416-863-5566 kentthomson@dwpv.com
Chantelle Cseh (LSO #60620Q)
Tel: 416-367-7552
Chenyang Li (LSO #73249C)
Tel: 416-367-7623
• Federate Insurance and Northbridge
BRANCH MACMASTER LLP
1410-777 Hornby Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 1S4
Christopher Rhone (#81352W)
Avichay Sharon (#73709W)
Ruby Egit (#69959I) regit@branmac.com
TEL: 604-654-2954
• Gore
LERNERS LLP
2400 - 130 Adelaide Street West Toronto ON M5H 3P5
Kirk Boggs (LSO #23620V)
Tel: 416-601-2367
Jason Squire (LSO #43183O)
Tel: 416-601-2369
Jacqueline Palef (LSO# 75194B)
Tel: 416-601-2387
• Co-operators and Wynward Holdings (doing business as Wynward Insurance Group)
STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP
5300 Commerce Court West
199 Bay Street
Toronto ON M5L 1B9
Alan L. W. D'Silva (LSO #29225P)
Tel: 416-869-5204
Glenn Zacher (LSO #43625P)
Tel: 416-869-5688
Lesley Mercer (LSO #54491E)
Tel: 416-869-6859 lmercer@stikeman.com
Daniel S. Murdoch (LSO #53123L)
Tel: 416-869-5529 dmurdoch@stikeman.com
Patrick O'Kelly (LSO #24182P)
Tel: 416-869-5633
• SGI
THOMAS GOLD PETTINGILL LLP
1800 -150 York Street
Toronto ON M5H 3S5
Alexander Pettingill (LSO #33431P)
Tel: 416-507-1802
• Certas Home and Auto
DUTTON BROCK LLP
1700 — 438 University Avenue
Toronto ON MSG 2L9
Stephen N. Libin (LSO #57181E)
Tel: 416-593-4411 ext. 2432
Eric J. Adams (LSO #57780R)
Tel: 416-593-4411 ext. 2357 eadams@duttonbrock.com
• Wawanesa
BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP
4000 - 199 Bay Street
Commerce Court West Toronto ON M5L 1A9
Cathy Beagan Flood (LSO #43013U)
Tel: 416-863-2269 cathy.beaganflood@blakes.com
Nicole Henderson (LSO #56799K)
Tel: 416-863-2399
Parties Supporting the Motion
• Workman Class Plaintiffs
KOSKIE MINSKY LLP
900 - 20 Queen Street West Toronto ON M5H 3R3
Kirk Baert (LSO #30942O)
Tel: 416-595-2117
Aryan Ziaie (LSO#70510Q)
Tel: (416) 595-2104 aziaie@kmlaw.ca
Nathalie Gondek (LSO #77660H)
Tel: 416-542-6286
Caitlin Leach (LSO#: 82774T)
Tel: 416-595-2124
MERCHANT LAW GROUP LLP
300 — 116 Albert Street Ottawa ON K1P 5G3
Evatt Merchant (LSO #51811C)
Tel: 613-366-2795
Christopher Simoes (LSO #69232D)
Tel: 416-828-7777
• Workman Defendants - Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s Subscribing to Policy No. LNP2210, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s Subscribing to Policy No. SR040046, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s Subscribing to Policy No. GASS1300
BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS
3400 - 22 Adelaide Street West Toronto ON M5H 4E3
Glenn Zakaib (LSO #23320F)
Tel: 416-367-6664
Edona C. Vila (LSO #66851R)
Tel: 416-367-6554
Marc-Andre McCann
Tel: 514-954-2612
• Portage
DIVINCENZO VOLARIC LLP
25 Main Street West, Suite 2100
Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1
Z.S. Pete Volaric
Tel: (905) 529-1939
• Aviva
AVIVA TRIAL LAWYERS
4800-100 King St. West
Toronto ON M5X 2A2
Daniel Reisler
Tel: 647-788-7126
Peter Rollo
• HDI Global Specialty SE and Grenville Mutual Insurance
BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower
22 Adelaide Street West
Toronto, ON M5H 4E3
Glenn Zakaib
Tel: 416.367.6664
David Ebnan
Tel: 416.367.6031
T. Kirk Boyd
Tel: 613.787.3563
Emilie Roy
Tel: 613.787.3582
• Brendan Coulombe
HENNICK LAW
206-50 Acadia Avenue
Markham, ON L3R 0B3
Lawson Hennick
TEL: 905-604-4529 lhennick@hennicklaw.com
• Fat Pasha Inc., Gordy Smiles Inc. and The Grand Elvis Inc. (will not be attending)
AIRD & BERLIS LLP
Brookfield Place
1800-181 Bay Street, Box 754 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9
Dennis M. O'Leary
Tel: 416-865-4711 doleary@airdberlis.com
• Wawanesa
BLANEY MCMURTRY LLP
2 Queen Street East, Suite 1500
Toronto, ON MSC 3G5
Anthony H. Gatensby
Tel: 416-593-3987
• RSA (in respect of any individual matters with separate counsel assigned, as set out on the Chart of Overlapping Proceedings)
CLYDE & CO.
401 Bay Street, Suite 2500
PO Box 25
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4
George Karayannides
Tel: 647-789-4831
George.karayannides@clydeco.ca
John Nicholl
Tel: 647-789-4847
• Northbridge (in respect of any individual matters with separate counsel assigned, as set out on the Chart of Overlapping Proceedings)
EVANGELISTA BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
199 Bay Street, Suite 4110
PO Box 334
Commerce Court Postal Station
Toronto, ON M5L 1G2
Andrew Evangelista
Tel: (416) 363-7851
• Economical (in respect of any individual matters with separate counsel assigned, as set out on the Chart of Overlapping Proceedings)
ECONOMICAL MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY
1800-5700 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M2M 4K2
Eric Zadro
• Co-operators (in respect of any individual matters with separate counsel assigned, as set out on the Chart of Overlapping Proceedings)
STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP
5300 Commerce Court West
199 Bay Street Toronto ON M5L 1B9
Alan L. W. D'Silva (LSO #29225P)
Tel: 416-869-5204
Aaron Kreaden
Tel: 416-869-5565
Ritika Rai
Tel : 416-869-6885 rrai@stikeman.com
• All Insurer defendants in Soho Hotel Inc. v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (CV-21-6555498-0000)
o Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co
EVANGELISTA BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
199 Bay Street, Suite 4110
PO Box 334
Commerce Court Postal Station
Toronto, ON M5L 1G2
Andrew Evangelista
Tel: (416) 363-7851
o AXA, AXA S.A., AXA XL, AXA XL Insurance, XL Catlin, AXA Insurance Inc., AXA Insurance (Canada), and XL Specialty Insurance Company
CLYDE & CO.
401 Bay Street, Suite 2500
PO Box 25
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4
Roderic McLauchlin
TEL: 647-789-4849
Tal Letourneau
TEL : 647-789-4818
o Echelon
DOLDEN WALLACE FOLICK LLP
20 Adelaide Street East, 14th Floor
Toronto, ON M5C 2T6
Jason Arcuri
TEL: 647-670-2150
Michael Libby
TEL: 604-891-0358 libby@dolden.com
o Intact
INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY
700 University Avenue, Suite 1500
Toronto, ON M5G 0A1
Joseph Lin LSO 44374H
TEL: 41 217 7272 ext. 4331
Parties Opposing the Motion
• McCarthys Plaintiffs
McCARTHY TETRAULT LLP
TD Bank Tower
Suite 5300, PO Box 48
Toronto, ON M5K 136
Christopher Hubbard (LSO #45682N)
Tel: 416.601.8273
H. Michael Rosenberg (LSO #58140U)
Tel: 416.601.7831
Hovsep Afarian (LSO #45874O)
Tel: 416.601.7615
Ljiljana Stanic (LSO #70149C)
Tel: 416.601.7802
Ivan Merrow (LSO # 70064U)
Tel: 416.601.8131
Brittany Cerqua (LS #79327J)
Tel: 416.601.7978
Pippa Leslie (LSO #79615Q)
Tel: 416.601.7942
• Dr. Jonah Marks
JOEL VALE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
194 Bridle Path
North York, ON M3C 2P5
Joel Vale
Tel: 416-447-8597 joelvale@rogers.com
David Fogel
Tel: 416-480-0221 ext. 318
• Kernels
MOHER LEGAL
St. Clair Ave East, Suite 800
Toronto, ON M4T 2Y3
Brian Moher
Tel: 416-571-9610
ROUTE LAW
40 Wynford Drive, Suite 305
Toronto, ON M3C 1J5
William Sharpe
Tel: 416-482-5321
Parties That Take No Position on the Motion
• Green Heart Catering Inc.
GREG MONFORTON & PARTNERS
1 Riverside Drive West Suite 801
Windsor, ON N9A 5K3
Jennifer Bezaire
Joanna Sweet
Heather Colman
TEL: 866-240-8961
• Dr. Jeka Saban PC
WISE LAW OFFICE
1112 Eglinton Ave West Toronto, ON M6C 2E2
Garry Wise
Tel: (416) 972-1800
• Dr. Adam Ohayon et al. (will not be attending)
LINDEN & ASSOCIATES
Royal Bank Plaza, North Tower
200 Bay Street, Suite 2010
Toronto, ON M5J 2J1
Justin Linden
Tel: 416-861-9338 (ext: 250)
• Arthur Dunec, Sheldon Hope DPC and Dina Lebowitz Dentistry Professional Corp
SREBROLOW LEBOWITZ SPADAFORA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
600-703 Evans Avenue Toronto, ON M9C 5E9
Sidney Lebowitz
Tel: 416-644-3996
• Smyth Dental Care
FORGET SMITH LLP
400-116 Albert Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5G3
Martin Forget
Tel: 416.216.4242 mforget@forgetsmith.com
Riley McIntyre
Tel: 613.670.5622 rmcintyre@forgetsmith.com
• Dr. Mark Dodge
DEVRY SMITH FRANK LLP
95 Barber Green Road, Suite 100
Toronto, ON M3C 3E9
Ashley Doidge
Tel: 416-446-3348
• Pegasus on Church Inc.
CAMBRIDGE LLP
333 Adelaide Street West, 4th Floor
Toronto, ON M5V 1R5
R. Douglas Elliott
Tel: 416 477 7007 ext.350 delliott@cambridgellp.com
Christopher MacLeod
Tel: 647 346 6696 cmacleod@cambridgellp.com
Ruzbeh Hosseini
Tel: 416 477 7007 ext.306 rhosseini@cambridgellp.com
Joseph Figliomeni
Tel: 416 477 7007 ext.209 jfigliomeni@cambridgellp.com
N. Joan Kasozi
Tel: 416 477 7007 ext.331 jkasozi@cambridgellp.com
• Martin Daniels Interiors, Giancorp Investments Inc. & Arcadia Academy of Music
BISCEGLIA & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
9100 Jane Street
Suite 200, Building A
Vaughan, ON L4K 0A4
Emilio Bisceglia (LSO #34568Q)
Tel: 905-695-3100
• Event Imaging and Logistix
KRYLOV LAM & CO. LLP
110 Sheppard Avenue East Suite 700
Toronto, ON M2N 6Y8
Richard A. Lebkowski
Tel: 416 649 0000 ext. 304
• 1938334 Ontario Inc.
CHAPPELL PARTNERS LLP
20 Queen Street West, Suite 3310
Toronto, ON M5H 3R3
Steven Bellissimo
Tel: 416-351-0005
sbellissimo@chappellpartners.ca
• Robertson Hall Insurance Inc. and R. Robertson Insurance Brokers Limited
SISKINDS LLP
275 Dundas Street, Unit 1
PO Box 2520
London, ON N6B 3L1
Catherine R. Bruni
Tel: 519.660.7798
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00643488-00CP
DATE: 20220128
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
WORKMAN OPTOMETRY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 1298928 ONTARIO LTD., THE SUIT SHOP CO. LTD., 2328867 ONTARIO INC. (o/a BOOSTER JUICE 369, BOOSTER JUICE 388, BOOSTER JUICE 375, AND BOOSTER JUICE 452), 2635774 ONTARIO INC. (o/a BOOSTER JUICE 275), 2660364 ONTARIO INC. (o/a BOOSTER JUICE 200), IN HARMONY DANCE & WELLNESS LTD., RANA TAJI OPTOMETRY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, and SCOTIAN ISLE BAKED GOODS INC.
Plaintiffs
– AND –
CERTAS HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, CO-OPERATORS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, ECONOMICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERATED INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANDA, GORE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLYOD’S SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. LNP2210, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLYOD’S SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO.SR040046, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLYOD’S SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. GASS1300, NORTHBRIDGE GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, NOVEX INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, SGI CANADA INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., THE DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THE WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and WYNWARD INSURANCE GROUP
Defendants
ENDORSEMENT
McEwen, J.
Released: January 27, 2022