Court File and Parties
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jodi Dupuis, Neely Savard, Stephanie Veitch and Gary Vine
Plaintiffs
– and –
Bluewater Health, Transform Shared Service Organization, Chatham-Kent Health Alliance, Erie Shores Healthcare, Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare and Windsor Regional Hospital
Defendants
Paul Davis and Dillon Gohil, for the Plaintiffs
Daniel Girlando and Alexandra Moser, for the Defendants, Bluewater Health, Chatham-Kent Health Alliance, Erie Shores Healthcare, Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare and Windsor Regional Hospital
Ryann Atkins and Laura Cameron, for the Defendant Transform Shared Service Organization
HEARD: June 17, 2026
Endorsement
1An urgent case conference was convened at the request of the plaintiffs to address the certification motion timetable previously agreed to by all counsel. The unexpected delivery of a summary judgment motion by Bluewater Health, Chatham-Kent Health Alliance, Erie Shores Healthcare, Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare and Windsor Regional Hospital (the “hospital defendants”) triggered the request for a conference. The other defendant, Transform Shared Service Organization, has not yet decided whether it will be joining in that motion.
2The plaintiffs ask that the summary judgment motion not be heard concurrently with the certification motion scheduled to take place on January 28 and 29, 2027, on the basis that there is insufficient time in the current timetable to respond to the summary judgment motion. The hospital defendants submit that both certification and summary judgment motions can and should be heard together in January.
3Reluctantly, for the brief reasons set out below, I agree that the summary judgment motion ought to be heard with the certification motion. If the plaintiffs are not reasonably able to prepare a responding record in the fall, then a new motion date will be fixed.
a. Background
4The brief chronology of this matter is as follows:
This action was commenced in November 2023. It arises from a data breach that occurred in October 2023.
On October 31, 2024, the court ordered a timetable on consent of the parties. The original plaintiff, Robert Smith, was permitted to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim by November 24, 2024 and the certification motion record by March 31, 2025.
On January 14, 2025, on consent of all parties, the court ordered a new timetable which contemplated a certification motion hearing in September 2026. In accordance with that timetable, the plaintiff delivered his certification motion record on March 31, 2025.
On April 16, 2025, the hospital defendants advised that they intended to bring a Ragoonanan motion prior to certification seeking to dismiss the action as against certain of the hospital defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel requested a 60-day extension to the timetable so that they could add additional proposed representatives and obviate the need for a Ragoonanan motion.
Soon thereafter, Mr. Smith passed away unexpectedly. The parties negotiated an extension of the timetable. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to file amended material, and substitute new representative plaintiffs, by August 31, 2025.
In early September 2025, counsel for the plaintiff advised that they needed more time to identify appropriate representatives and expected to deliver their amended materials by the end of November 2025.
On December 1, 2025, the plaintiffs served their amended certification motion record and further amended statement of claim substituting the four named plaintiffs.
On December 10, 2025, the parties consented to another revised timetable pursuant to which the defendants’ responding certification motion material were due by May 1, 2026. Cross-examinations were to be completed by September 11, 2026. The parties asked that a two-day certification motion be scheduled in January 2027.
The certification motion was subsequently scheduled for January 28 and 29, 2027.
Three days before the May 1, 2026 deadline for the defendants’ responding record, the hospital defendants asked for and obtained a brief extension.
On May 14, 2026, the hospital defendants delivered their “responding motion record”, which included a notice of motion for summary judgment to be heard concurrently with the certification motion on January 28 and 29, 2027.
5The hospital defendants did not give plaintiffs’ counsel any advance warning of their intention to bring a summary judgment motion, and did not consult with them about the feasibility of arguing the motion in the two days set aside for the certification hearing. At the case conference, Mr. Girlando expressed his confidence that both motions could be argued in two days. Mr. Davis does not share his confidence.
6I have made inquiries of the trial co-ordinator and have been advised that an additional day during the week of January 25, 2027 may be available.
7The more difficult practical issue is the feasibility of scheduling the additional steps needed to hear the summary judgment motion within the existing timetable. The more pressing procedural question is whether the summary judgment motion ought to be heard with certification at all.
b. Legal Considerations and Analysis
8The hospital defendants rely on s. 4.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 for the proposition that they have the presumptive right to have summary judgment heard together with certification. That section provides:
4.1 If, before the hearing of the motion for certification, a motion is made under the rules of court that may dispose of the proceeding in whole or in part, or narrow the issues to be determined or the evidence to be adduced in the proceeding, that motion shall be heard and disposed of before the motion for certification, unless the court orders that the two motions be heard together. [Emphasis added.]
9In Dufault v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 2021 ONSC 6223, at para. 6, Belobaba J. confirmed that “if a pre-certification motion can arguably dispose of the proceeding in whole or in part, or can narrow the issues or the evidence, the motion must be heard before certification, unless the court orders that the two motions be heard together” [original emphasis].
10Dufault has been followed in a number of cases: Davis v. Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc, 2022 ONSC 2016; Grossman v. Apple Canada Inc., 2024 ONSC 4127. I note that those cases were decided on a proper sequencing motion, not a case conference. Nevertheless, all parties sought a determination without a formal motion and relied on these cases in their submissions.
11The language of s. 4.1 leaves little room for judicial discretion. If a judge determines that the proposed motion may dispose of or narrow the issues in the proceeding, the only remaining discretion is to determine whether the motion should be heard together with certification rather than before certification: Grossman, at para. 84.
12The hospital defendants submit that the proposed representative plaintiffs suffered no compensable harm. If successful, the motion will dispose of the plaintiffs’ claim in negligence in its entirety. The summary judgment motion, therefore, meets the criteria under s. 4.1.
13The hospital defendants acknowledge that their summary judgment motion cannot be heard before certification. Not only has the certification record been served, but the hearing has already been scheduled.
14It is unclear why it took the hospital defendants five months to review the certification motion record and decide that a summary judgment motion was appropriate. More concerning is that they did not even raise the possibility of a summary judgment motion before serving it and unilaterally determining that it would be heard in January 2027.
15Section 4.1 was enacted to more efficiently prosecute class proceedings. The irony of the hospital defendants’ conduct is that they have made efficiently completing the remaining steps to the certification and summary judgment motions all but impossible. Either the parties have to prepare for both motions in a compressed timeframe to keep the January hearing dates, or they must delay the hearing indefinitely.
16Based on the language of s. 4.1, however, I am compelled to permit the summary judgment motion to be heard concurrently with certification.
17The timetable for the exchange of materials remains to be determined. The plaintiffs state that there may be a need for a productions motion in order to prepare a responding summary judgment motion record. The production request has not yet been made and it is unknown if it will be refused. It is therefore premature to build a timetable around such a motion.
18The existing litigation timetable contemplates that cross-examinations will be completed by September 11, 2026 and factums exchanged by November 24, 2026. Those dates can be shifted at least a few weeks without jeopardizing the January 27-28, 2027 dates. I do not know whether the plaintiffs can file a responding record by early August.
19A further case conference is needed to fix a revised timetable. Counsel should discuss the production issue immediately and negotiate a new timetable. As mentioned above, a third day in January is available to ensure that there is sufficient time to hear both motions. If January 2027 is no longer a realistic target, the trial co-ordinator will attempt to find new dates as early as possible in 2027.
20Counsel may contact me via my judicial assistant at Sarnia.SCJ@ontario.ca to schedule a 9:00 a.m. case conference. The purpose of the case conference will be to finalize the revised timetable and confirm the dates of the hearing. Costs may also be spoken to at that time.
Kalajdzic J.
Released: June 22, 2026
CITATION: Dupuis v. Bluewater Health et al., 2026 ONSC 3654
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-000199-CP (Sarnia)
DATE: 20260622
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Jodi Dupuis, Neely Savard, Stephanie Veitch and Gary Vine
Plaintiffs
– and –
Bluewater Health, Transform Shared Service Organization, Chatham-Kent Health Alliance, Erie Shores Healthcare, Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare and Windsor Regional Hospital
Defendants
Endorsement
Kalajdzic J.
Released: June 22, 2026