S. Gordon McKee

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The court approved a $7.5 million settlement in a national class action alleging defective organic roofing shingles manufactured and sold by the defendants.

The settlement provides compensation to class members based on a point system reflecting warranty benefits received and qualifying damage.

The court considered the likelihood of success, litigation duration, settlement terms, and objections, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite individual members' higher repair cost expectations.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved.

The defendants, Ammar Khan and Brink's Canada Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle negligence claim arising from an accident.

The plaintiff, Victola Mayers, alleged Khan was liable.

The court applied the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Khan's liability.

The court rejected both the plaintiff's "advance green light" theory, which was contradicted by an independent witness, and the "contributory negligence" theory, finding no evidence that Khan had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed with costs.

In a nationally certified class action alleging defective organic roofing shingles, the plaintiff moved to amend the certification order to add a subclass of homeowners who had previously settled warranty claims with the defendant manufacturer and signed release forms.

The plaintiff sought certification of common issues regarding the scope of the releases and whether they were unconscionable, along with summary judgment on those issues.

The court held that determining the scope of each release and whether it was unconscionable required highly individualized factual inquiries into negotiations, compensation, homeowner circumstances, and surrounding context.

Because these issues lacked sufficient commonality across the proposed subclass, they could not be certified as common issues under the Class Proceedings Act.

The proposed release subclass and related objector subclass were therefore refused certification.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a product liability class action against Whirlpool for pure economic losses related to allegedly negligently designed front-loading washing machines that were prone to biofilm buildup.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the plaintiffs had no tenable cause of action in contract, breach of statute, negligence, or waiver of tort.

Specifically, the court held that there is no recovery in negligence for pure economic losses for a shoddy but non-dangerous consumer product.

A certified class proceeding alleged that a manufacturer negligently designed, tested, marketed, and monitored mechanical heart valves coated with a silver-based antimicrobial surface.

The plaintiffs argued that the coating impaired tissue healing and increased the risk of complications including paravalvular leak, thromboembolism, and death.

After an extensive common‑issues trial involving scientific, epidemiological, and regulatory evidence, the court found the manufacturer exercised reasonable care in product design, testing, and post‑market surveillance.

The court concluded that the coating did not adversely affect tissue healing and did not materially increase the risk of most alleged complications, except for a temporary increase in paravalvular leak risk in the early post‑implant period.

Because negligence and causation were not established, the class action was dismissed.