Sharon Johnston

This is a proposed class proceeding concerning pension transfers from the Ontario public service to the federal public service.

The parties negotiated an agreement to certify the action for settlement purposes.

This order approves the proposed communication and notice plan for class members and fixes a date for the certification and settlement approval motion, ensuring class members are informed of their options.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that dismissed their Rule 21 motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, including a former RCMP member, claimed damages for harassment, assault, and sexual assault.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the plaintiff received a pension for PTSD.

The court refused leave to appeal, finding no conflicting case law on the principles for striking pleadings and no good reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that it was not plain and obvious the entire claim was barred.

The Attorney General of Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to strike parts of the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The underlying action involved an aircraft runway overrun, with the plaintiffs alleging Transport Canada was negligent in designing, constructing, and certifying the runway.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to leave the duty of care analysis for trial.

Following a motion in which the plaintiffs successfully opposed the Attorney General’s attempt to strike portions of a statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $19,586 in fees on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued for a reduced range of $10,000 to $12,000.

Applying the Rule 57.01(1) factors and relevant authorities on partial indemnity costs, the court assessed the complexity of the duty of care issue, the parties’ litigation conduct, and the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates and bill of costs.

The court concluded that a reduced but significant award was appropriate.

The defendant federal regulator brought a motion under Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of a question of law that it owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff insurers in relation to regulatory oversight of an airport.

The action arose from an aircraft runway overrun where the plaintiffs alleged negligence in runway design and construction, ownership of the airport, and regulatory certification of the airport despite known safety deficiencies.

The court held that although existing jurisprudence suggests regulators generally do not owe private law duties of care for policy‑based regulatory decisions, it was not plain and obvious that special circumstances could not give rise to such a duty in the pleaded factual context.

Issues relating to the statutory framework, the characterization of certification decisions as policy or operational, and the factual circumstances required a full evidentiary record.

The motion to strike the regulatory negligence allegations and related pleadings was therefore dismissed.