Sharon Strosberg

The appellant, a coalition of landlords, appealed the dismissal of its application to quash a municipal residential rental licensing by-law enacted as a pilot project.

The appellant argued the by-law was arbitrary, enacted in bad faith, and ultra vires due to alleged violations of the Charter, the Residential Tenancies Act, and privacy legislation.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review to municipal decisions and found the by-law was passed in good faith for valid health and safety purposes.

The court dismissed all constitutional and statutory challenges, concluding the by-law did not restrict marketing, permit unlawful entry, interfere with subletting, encroach on criminal law powers, or require disclosure of protected personal information.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding arising from a residential high-rise fire, the court determined the costs of the certification motion.

The plaintiffs sought over $435,000 in costs from the defendant, while the third parties sought their costs from the plaintiffs.

Applying the Pearson factors, the court awarded the plaintiffs $348,056.04 in costs against the defendant.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had drawn the third parties into the certification motion by amending the common issues, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $45,200 in costs to the third parties.

This decision concerns a motion for certification of a class action following a fire in an apartment building.

The court addressed preliminary issues of jurisdiction (Superior Court vs. Landlord and Tenant Board), admissibility of an expert report, and the involvement of third parties.

The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because the total amount claimed exceeded the LTB's monetary limit, even if individual claims might be smaller.

The expert report was deemed admissible for certification purposes.

The class action was certified, with modifications to the proposed class definition and common issues.

Specifically, the court removed references to "contractors" and "subcontractors" from common issues related to the Third Parties, as no direct cause of action was pleaded against them by the plaintiffs.

The court emphasized access to justice and behaviour modification as key factors favoring certification.

This decision concerns a consent certification motion in a class action arising from a six-alarm electrical fire at 650 Parliament Street, Toronto, which displaced hundreds of tenants.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding against the core defendants, Parwell Investments Inc. and 650 Parliament (LHB) Investments Limited, on the common issue of negligence.

The certification was granted based on the parties' agreement, satisfying the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including an identifiable class, common issues, preferability of a class proceeding, and suitable representative plaintiffs.

The order defined the class, appointed representative plaintiffs, declared negligence as the cause of action, and outlined specific common issues related to the defendants' duty and breach of care concerning the building's design, construction, operation, maintenance, and electrical systems.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

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.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, representative counsel for pharmacist franchisees brought a motion for approval of their fees and disbursements totaling approximately $1.95 million.

The Pharmacy Franchisee Association of Canada and several individual pharmacists objected to the fees on various grounds, including the allocation of fees and the overall amount.

The court dismissed the objections, finding that the fees were properly allocated based on when claims were resolved and that the total amount was fair and reasonable given the complexity of the matter, the time expended, and the results achieved.

The fee request was approved in full.

The representative plaintiffs moved for approval of a $2.375 million settlement in a class action concerning the under-dosing of chemotherapy drugs at several hospitals.

The defendants, who supplied and administered the drugs, denied liability, arguing there was no evidence of clinical impact on patient outcomes and that the plaintiffs' psychological harm did not meet the legal threshold for a recognizable psychiatric illness.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks, the lack of evidence showing clinical harm, and the recommendations of experienced class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's requested fees of $400,000.

The defendant, owner of the Ambassador Bridge, brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a nuisance action commenced by property owners in Old Sandwich Town.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant unlawfully allowed properties it purchased to deteriorate, reducing property values.

The defendant argued that widespread negative, defamatory, and accusatory pre-trial publicity in Windsor regarding its conduct and motives made it impossible to find an impartial jury.

The court agreed, finding a real danger that the cumulative effect of over a decade of negative commentary could predispose jurors against the defendant.

The motion was granted and the jury notice was struck.

In CCAA proceedings arising from the wind-down of a national retail chain, a pharmacy franchisee association moved to set aside disclaimer notices delivered in respect of franchise agreements for in-store pharmacies, and sought representative status, counsel, a financial advisor, and estate-funded professional fees.

The court held that the statutory factors under s. 32(4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act favoured permitting the disclaimers to stand, as store closures were inevitable, the monitor had approved the notices, setting them aside would delay liquidation and divert estate value from unsecured creditors generally, and no evidence showed continued operation in dark stores would improve the franchisees’ financial circumstances.

The court nevertheless found limited collective representation would assist with transition issues including regulators, inventory return, and claims, and appointed the association as representative, with counsel and a financial advisor.

Funding of up to $100,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST was approved, but no administrative charge was granted.

The plaintiffs brought certification motions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 relating to falling balcony glass panels from three condominium developments in Toronto.

Owners and residents alleged negligence, nuisance, and breach of contract against developers, builders, and related entities after balconies were sealed and glass panels replaced following safety concerns.

The defendants consented to certification subject to three caveats regarding class definition wording, certification of an aggregate damages issue, and the viability of a collateral contract claim against a developer.

The court certified the actions as class proceedings, rejecting the proposed change to the class definition and permitting the collateral contract claim to proceed as a common issue.

However, the court declined to certify a proposed aggregate damages issue due to appellate authority interpreting s. 24(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act as prohibiting random sampling of class members to determine damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a $9 million class action settlement and Class Counsel's fee agreement regarding a C. difficile outbreak at the defendant hospital.

The outbreak affected approximately 223 patients, 91 of whom died.

The court reviewed the settlement terms, which allocated funds based on the duration and severity of symptoms, and considered factors such as litigation risk, the recommendation of experienced counsel, and the single remaining objection.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlement and the proposed legal fees of 21.5%.

The plaintiffs contracted HIV from the defendant after he had unprotected sex with them without disclosing his status.

The plaintiffs sued the Windsor Health Unit and the Windsor Police for negligence, alleging they knew of the risk the defendant posed but failed to take steps to prevent it.

The health unit and police moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing they owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the issue of whether a duty of care existed was complex and required a full trial to determine proximity and policy considerations.

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed class action arising from explosions at a propane facility in Toronto that allegedly caused personal injury, property damage, and evacuation of nearby residents.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

It held that the pleadings against certain landlord defendants failed to disclose a viable cause of action because the allegations relying on agency, single‑group enterprise, and alter‑ego theories lacked material facts capable of piercing the corporate veil.

Those pleadings were struck with leave to amend and the certification motion against those defendants was adjourned.

The proceeding was otherwise certified as a class action against the remaining defendants, with common issues approved and representative plaintiffs appointed.

The testator bequeathed his shares in a family business to his sister.

A brother challenged the bequest, arguing it violated a shareholders' agreement restricting share transfers.

The trial judge found the bequest null and void.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that contractual obligations do not constrain a person's ability to bequeath property by will.

Under section 67(2) of the Business Corporations Act, the estate trustees are entitled to be treated as registered security holders.

While the estate trustees are bound by the shareholders' agreement and cannot immediately distribute the shares without compliance, this does not render the bequest void.

The appeal was allowed.

In the context of Air Canada's CCAA restructuring, the appellant sought leave to appeal an order approving an equity investment agreement with Trinity Time Investments Limited and denying an adjournment to consider a competing proposal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave, finding no error in the supervising judge's decision to approve the agreement, which contained a 'fiduciary out' clause allowing the board to consider superior proposals.

The court held that the test for leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings—requiring serious and arguable grounds of real and significant interest—was not met.