Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

Two competing class counsel groups sought carriage of a proposed class action against the Province of Ontario regarding COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care homes.

The Nisbet Action proposed suing Ontario solely for its several liability to avoid third-party claims and expedite certification.

The Robertson Action proposed a conventional joint and several liability approach, expecting third-party claims between Ontario and long-term care operators.

The court granted carriage to the Robertson Action, finding that the several liability approach offered no early-stage advantage and would create significant disadvantages in later-stage litigation, including potential unfairness to the defendant and risks of unrecovered losses for class members.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of a $25 million settlement in two pharmaceutical class actions alleging that the diabetes drug PIO caused bladder cancer and that the defendants failed to warn of this risk.

The court initially raised concerns about the settlement amount compared to a $2.4 billion U.S. settlement, but approved it after class counsel provided evidence of recent scientific studies undermining causation and differences in market size and litigation risk.

The court also approved class counsel's 30% contingency fee and awarded a reduced honorarium of $1,500 to each representative plaintiff.

The parties settled a commercial tenancy dispute prior to the hearing of their application and cross-application.

However, the court issued an endorsement to address a false statement made by the applicant in a sworn affidavit regarding his travel to China.

After receiving an explanation that the applicant had indeed travelled to China but on a different airline and date than sworn, the court declined to pursue a contempt hearing.

The court cautioned that false statements in affidavits are taken seriously and could preclude equitable remedies such as relief against forfeiture.

The defendants, a lawyer and his firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants negligently failed to perfect a construction lien, resulting in the loss of its secured position.

The plaintiff argued it did not discover the claim until the conclusion of the debtor's bankruptcy proceedings when it became clear no funds would be recovered.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known it had suffered a loss and that a civil action was legally appropriate by October 2014, when it was advised the lien had expired.

The bankruptcy proceeding was not an alternative dispute resolution process that delayed the limitation period.

The action, commenced in 2019, was statute-barred and dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in an emissions defeat device class action, the successful defendants sought costs totaling $965,012 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for a maximum award of $125,000, noting their own costs were $550,263.

The court fixed costs at $560,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues, the number of defendant groups, and the costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs themselves.

The representative plaintiffs in two class actions against the Toronto Police Services Board for wrongful arrest and detention during the 2010 G20 Summit sought court approval for a proposed settlement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included up to $16.5 million in financial compensation, a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, commitments to reform policing of public demonstrations, and expungement of arrest records.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant non-monetary components and the risks of proceeding to trial.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, which amounted to approximately 28 percent of the recovery, as fair and reasonable.

Following a partially successful certification motion in a privacy breach class action, the plaintiffs sought costs of $532,162.17.

The court found the requested amount excessive and unreasonable due to over-litigating, over-staffing, and over-docketing.

Noting the plaintiffs' mixed success and last-minute changes to their case that prejudiced the defendants, the court reduced a reasonable starting point of $160,000 by half, awarding the plaintiffs $80,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs in a Quebec class action and the defendants brought motions to stay a parallel Ontario class action alleging securities misrepresentations.

The moving parties argued the Ontario action was duplicative and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario action was more comprehensive and not duplicative of the Quebec action when it was filed.

The court held that issues of preferability between parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions are better addressed at the certification stage rather than through a pre-certification stay motion for abuse of process.

This addendum to a ruling addresses the approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement for the main action in a personal injury litigation.

The court re-evaluated whether "exceptional circumstances" existed in 2011, when the fee agreement was initially made, to justify a contingency fee of 25% plus costs recovered from the opposing party, as per s. 28.1(8) of the Solicitors Act.

The decision considers the complexity of the claim, the substantial financial risk assumed by counsel, the significance of the litigation to the clients, and the resources expended.

The court ultimately approved the agreement for the main action, finding that exceptional circumstances were present.

Two competing class actions were filed following a six-alarm electrical fire that displaced hundreds of tenants at 650 Parliament Street.

The court heard a carriage motion to determine which law firm should proceed.

Finding both firms equally qualified and prepared, the court awarded carriage to the Strosberg/Charney consortium in the Chu action based on their fee arrangement, which would result in a significantly larger net recovery for the class members compared to the competing firm's fixed fee and third-party funding arrangement.

The Attorney General for Ontario (AGO) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, which sought $4.5 million in damages.

The plaintiff's action alleged wrongful non-disclosure, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment, and various Charter breaches against the AGO, arising from his arrest, conviction, and subsequent appeal and acquittal for firearms-related offences.

The court granted the AGO's motion, striking all claims against the AGO without leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's allegations confused legal conclusions (e.g., the unlawfulness of a search, determined on appeal) with facts that the Crown should have disclosed or known at the time of trial.

It also determined that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary elements for the asserted torts, such as malice or improper purpose, and that the Crown's role includes advancing legal theories, even if ultimately unsuccessful.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall in a grocery store produce section.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on water and/or ice originating from broccoli displayed on crushed ice.

The defendants argued they maintained a reasonable inspection and maintenance system and that the area had been inspected minutes before the fall.

The court held that conflicting evidence regarding the store’s drainage system, staff training, and compliance with inspection procedures created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing liability claims arising from a chain-reaction rear-end motor vehicle accident.

They argued there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding their liability.

The court found conflicting evidence concerning how the collision occurred, including discrepancies relating to lane changes and cell phone usage prior to the accident.

Credibility issues affecting both drivers could not be resolved on the written record.

The court held that a full appreciation of the evidence required oral testimony at trial and dismissed the motion.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced nine separate actions against 30 defendants, including doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, and academic advisors, alleging medical malpractice and negligence.

The plaintiff, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia but refused to accept the diagnosis or take medication, claimed the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat his physical injuries and ignored his beliefs about synchronicities.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the actions.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff failed to provide any expert evidence to support his claims, while the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that they met or exceeded the standard of care.

The court also found the actions to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $1,500 to each defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to issue certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against two Toronto properties, asserting a constructive trust based on alleged unjust enrichment after paying mortgages and expenses on behalf of the defendants.

The defendants argued that rents collected by the plaintiff exceeded the payments made and that no unjust enrichment occurred.

The court held that there was a triable issue regarding whether the plaintiff had been fully reimbursed and whether a constructive trust could be imposed.

However, the court declined to grant a CPL on one property because it had been sold and the proceeds would not satisfy the mortgage.

Leave to issue a CPL was granted only with respect to the Carlaw Avenue property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add a railway company as a defendant and to amend their statement of claim following a train–motor vehicle collision.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in identifying it earlier.

The court held that the discoverability principle applied because the plaintiffs reasonably believed the train operator was responsible for the crossing until examinations for discovery revealed that another entity controlled the tracks and signals.

The court found the plaintiffs had acted with reasonable diligence and that the proposed defendant suffered no actual prejudice given its early knowledge of the accident.

The motion to add the party and amend the claim was granted, with leave to the added defendant to plead a limitation defence.

Following dismissal of the applicants’ motion concerning the legal validity of a long‑standing agreement registered on title to residential property, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondents, who were wholly successful on the motion, sought over $32,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court determined that partial indemnity costs should be calculated at 60% of counsel’s hourly rate and accepted the reasonableness of time spent by a senior real estate lawyer assisting with the matter.

However, a $2,000 disbursement for legal research was disallowed for lack of supporting documentation under Rule 57.01(5) and Form 57A of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ultimately fixed costs at $22,809.82 payable forthwith.

A mortgage lender brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractor’s claim seeking a declaration that holdback funds from mortgage advances were held in trust for the contractor under the Construction Lien Act.

The court held that although the mortgagee was not obligated under the Act to maintain a statutory holdback because it was not a “payer,” the retained funds constituted trust funds for the contractor’s benefit.

The funds were deemed “received” by the property owner for the purposes of s. 7(1) even though they were held in trust by the lender’s solicitor.

The court also rejected limitation and res judicata defences, finding the claim was discovered only when the lender refused payment and that the earlier lien action involved different parties and causes of action.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.