Sivan Tumarkin

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant insurer wrongfully deprived insureds of trip cancellation benefits by offering non-monetary compensation such as credits or vouchers.

On consent, the court certified a single threshold common issue regarding the interpretation of the travel insurance policy and dismissed the claim against the parent bank.

The court found that certifying a single threshold common issue, with the possibility of further common issues later, was an efficient procedure akin to a Rule 21 motion.

At a case conference in a proposed class action regarding denied trip cancellation benefits due to COVID-19, the court determined the sequencing of a proposed Rule 21 motion by the defendant bank and the plaintiff's certification motion.

The court held that hearing the Rule 21 motion prior to certification would not substantially narrow the issues, as the substantive claims against the co-defendant insurer would remain identical.

Exercising its discretion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court ordered the Rule 21 motion to be heard at the same time as the certification motion.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a judgment awarding damages for a respiratory injury allegedly caused by being sprayed with a fire extinguisher.

The appeal raised issues regarding the admission of participant expert evidence, the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for not considering defence expert evidence on causation, and the quantum of non-pecuniary damages.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons insufficient for failing to analyze the appellant's expert evidence on the diagnosis of Reactive Airways Disorder Syndrome (RADS) and for relying on an unqualified expert's incorrect summary of other specialists' views.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant's store when an employee accidentally discharged a fire extinguisher in his face.

The defendant admitted liability but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff's subsequent severe respiratory issues were a natural progression of a pre-existing illness.

The court applied the 'but for' test and the thin skull doctrine, finding that the incident caused the plaintiff to develop Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS).

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in non-pecuniary damages, along with significant awards for past and future income loss, and subrogated claims.