Scott Maidment

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a class action against the manufacturers of Pradaxa, an anticoagulant drug.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their duty to warn consumers and healthcare professionals about the lack of an antidote for the drug, which could lead to excessive bleeding.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the proposed common issues actually existed or could be answered in common across the class.

The court noted that the decision to prescribe an anticoagulant and the need for a reversal agent are highly patient-specific, and there was no basis in fact to conclude that the absence of an antidote posed a common and material risk across the class.

The parties disputed the interpretation of a rent-reset clause in two 100-year ground leases.

The landlord appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside an arbitral award valuing the lands based on a hypothetical freehold condominium development.

The tenants cross-appealed, arguing the leasehold interest should be valued and seeking a new arbitral panel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeals, holding that issue estoppel applied from a 1993 decision between the parties, meaning the lands must be valued as a freehold interest but excluding the potential for freehold condominium development because the lands are subject to a lease.

The court also affirmed remitting the matter to the original arbitral panel.

The defendants were successful on a motion for the production of the plaintiffs' medical records in a proposed class action.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $20,300.66.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded, or alternatively, costs should be fixed at $9,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments against a costs award but reduced the quantum sought by the defendants, finding it beyond the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 payable to the defendants in any event of the cause.

In a proposed pharmaceutical products liability class action concerning the anticoagulant drug Pradaxa®, the defendants sought production of additional medical records of the proposed representative plaintiffs prior to the certification motion.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing certification is a procedural step and that extensive medical disclosure was unnecessary and intrusive at the pre‑certification stage.

The court held that the scope of pre‑certification disclosure depends on the nature of the particular class action and that, in a drug‑related products liability claim alleging serious adverse effects, more detailed medical evidence was relevant to the certification criteria.

The court concluded it was apparent from the pleadings that limited records confirming ingestion of the drug were insufficient.

Production of the requested medical records was therefore ordered.

The tenants under two long-term ground leases appealed a majority arbitration award determining the fair market value of the lands for rent re-set purposes.

The court upheld the arbitrators' finding that the freehold interest, not the leasehold interest, was to be valued.

However, the court found the arbitrators erred in law by including the potential value of a freehold residential condominium project in the valuation, as a prior Divisional Court decision between the parties established that development potential unavailable to the tenants due to legal restrictions must be excluded.

Finding that issue estoppel applied to this prior determination, the court set aside the arbitration award and ordered a new hearing.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed product liability class action for settlement purposes and to approve a negotiated settlement and class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleged design and manufacturing defects in certain windows that permitted water penetration and caused wood rot and property damage.

The court held that the requirements for certification under s. 5(1) were met in the settlement context and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The proposed settlement, which provided compensation through a claims process or expedited arbitration and included no cap on total benefits, was found to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $650,000 as reasonable in light of the risks and work undertaken.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a price‑fixing class action for settlement purposes against certain chocolate manufacturers and approval of a settlement with one defendant.

The action alleged a conspiracy to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of chocolate confectionery products in Canada, contrary to competition law.

The court considered the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and approved certification for settlement purposes, noting that common issues and preferable procedure criteria were satisfied.

The court further approved a $5.3 million settlement with the settling defendant, including cooperation provisions and a most‑favoured‑nation clause, finding the compromise fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

An interim class counsel fee award of $800,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax was approved, subject to possible adjustment depending on future settlements.

The plaintiffs appealed an order determining that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens for their claims of breach of contract and misrepresentation against their insurance brokers and insurers.

The claims arose from a lapsed umbrella liability policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the central core of the lawsuit concerned contracts and representations made in Quebec, and that the plaintiffs' presence in Ontario was insignificant.

The applicant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, sought judicial review of a recommendation by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).

The applicant alleged that CADTH breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to publish draft rules for a pilot project and by allowing a competitor to participate, thereby giving the competitor an unfair market advantage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that CADTH had widely communicated the existence of the pilot project to the industry and that any manufacturer, including the applicant, could have volunteered to participate.

The court concluded that CADTH's conduct was transparent, even-handed, and reasonable, and that there was no breach of the applicant's legitimate expectations.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal from a Superior Court decision that allowed an appeal from two arbitral awards.

The moving party argued the appellant failed to obtain leave to appeal as required by section 49 of the Arbitrations Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the parties could not contract out of the statutory leave requirement.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, but the court extended the time for the appellant to move for leave to appeal in writing.