Stefani Cuberovic

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered appeals and cross-appeals from a certification decision in a proposed class action regarding alleged defects in BMW vehicles equipped with N20 engines.

The court found that the certification judge erred in certifying causes of action for negligent design/manufacturing resulting in repair costs and in defining the class to include persons who incurred such costs.

The court held that neither of the proposed representative plaintiffs had a valid cause of action and set aside the certification order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal and cross-appeal, along with motions to quash.

The parties agreed that the appeal and cross-appeal were sufficiently interrelated to be heard together to avoid duplication and ensure consistency.

Consequently, the court, on consent, dismissed both motions to quash without costs, ordering the consolidated appeal and cross-appeal to proceed.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for certification of a class proceeding arising from a data breach involving the respondents and Cambridge Analytica.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that there was no evidence that Canadian users' data had actually been shared with Cambridge Analytica, failing the common issues requirement under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the certification test, did not require the appellant to prove loss at the certification stage, and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of the evidence or interpretation of the carriage orders.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The plaintiff moved to certify a class action against Facebook alleging that the personal data of Canadian users was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.

The court dismissed the certification motion because the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that Canadian users' data was actually shared with Cambridge Analytica.

The plaintiff's attempts to shift the focus to the unauthorized access by the third-party app developer were precluded by a prior carriage order that granted those claims to a different class action.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in an emissions defeat device class action, the successful defendants sought costs totaling $965,012 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for a maximum award of $125,000, noting their own costs were $550,263.

The court fixed costs at $560,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues, the number of defendant groups, and the costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs themselves.

The defendants brought motions across five Canadian jurisdictions to address overlapping multijurisdictional class actions regarding a data breach.

The parties reached a settlement to proceed only with the Ontario national class action and stay the actions in British Columbia, Alberta, Québec, and Nova Scotia.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the consent order dismissing the stay motion in Ontario, allowing the action to proceed subject to bi-annual reporting requirements to the case management judges in the other jurisdictions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding an alleged emissions defeat device in certain diesel-engine vehicles.

The defendants had already initiated a recall to repair the defeat device at no cost, rendering the vehicles compliant with emissions regulations.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of compensable harm, such as paying a premium price or experiencing reduced fuel economy post-repair.

Without compensable harm, the court held that a class action would not advance the goals of access to justice, behaviour modification, or judicial economy.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action regarding transvaginal mesh implants manufactured by the defendants.

The parties reached a settlement agreement that resolves the claims of many putative class members and provides a process for others to participate or pursue individual claims.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding that it was beneficial to settling class members and did not prejudice the remaining putative class members.

The court also approved the payment of $1,085,000 in costs to class counsel.

Two competing consortiums of class counsel brought a carriage motion to determine who would represent the proposed class in a national class action against Marriott regarding a massive data breach.

The court evaluated the standard carriage factors, finding most to be neutral.

The determinative factor was the interrelationship of class actions in multiple jurisdictions.

The court favoured the Winder Action because its counsel did not concede the necessity of overlapping regional class actions and was prepared to use multi-jurisdictional protocols to resolve the overlapping claims, whereas the Kogut Action consortium planned to run multiple overlapping actions across Canada.

Carriage was granted to the Winder Action and the competing actions were stayed.