Sheila Hepworth

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of participants in the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), alleging that the program's tied employment provisions and compelled payment of Employment Insurance (EI) premiums infringe sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter and constitute unjust enrichment.

The Crown opposed certification, arguing that the SAWP is a voluntary program and pointing to an overlapping national class action already authorized in Quebec.

The court found that the plaintiffs pleaded tenable causes of action, noting the historical evidence of discriminatory intent behind the SAWP and the structural exclusion of SAWP workers from EI benefits.

The court concluded that the Ontario action was preferable as it focused specifically on the unique conditions imposed on SAWP workers and could proceed in parallel with the Quebec action.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of Canadian cattle farmers against the Government of Canada, alleging negligence in its response to the threat of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as 'mad cow disease'.

The plaintiff claimed that Canada failed to implement a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in a timely manner and failed to prevent cattle imported from the United Kingdom from entering the animal feed chain, which led to the discovery of a BSE-infected Canadian cow in May 2003 and the subsequent closure of international borders to Canadian cattle and beef.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the claim was barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the class members had received compensation through various government financial assistance programs.

Furthermore, the court held that Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to the cattle farmers and that its policy decisions regarding the monitoring of imported cattle and the timing of the feed ban were reasonable and did not breach the standard of care.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine whether a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could sit outside Ontario to hear a motion concerning a pan-Canadian class action settlement.

The Attorney General of Ontario objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside its territorial boundaries.

The court held that where it has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it possesses the inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, which includes the discretion to sit outside the province.

The court found that holding a joint hearing with supervisory judges from British Columbia and Quebec in Alberta was in the interests of justice to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent orders.