Stéphanie Dion

The plaintiffs in a certified class action brought a motion to amend their statement of claim and certification order to add a claim for punitive damages based on evidence discovered during the discovery process.

The claim alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known of possible PFAS contamination of class members' drinking water by March 2013 but failed to disclose the contamination until December 2015.

The court found the proposed amendment was not plain and obvious to fail, as the failure to warn neighbouring residents of possible PFAS contamination of their drinking water could be found to offend the court's sense of decency.

The motion to amend was granted, Carleton University was removed as a defendant on consent, and the defendant's cross-motion was denied.

The plaintiffs moved to amend the Certification Order to permit a claim for punitive damages in a class action concerning PFAS contamination allegedly caused by the National Research Council of Canada.

The court reviewed new evidence suggesting the NRC knew or ought to have known about the contamination earlier than previously established.

The court held that the plaintiffs must first bring a motion to amend their pleadings before the Certification Order could be amended, adjourning the motion to add punitive damages as a common issue until that time.

The applicant made an access to information request to Global Affairs Canada for records relating to a negative decision on his request for legal assistance.

Global Affairs redacted certain information under the exemptions for personal information and solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant applied for a review under section 41 of the Access to Information Act.

The Federal Court held that the personal information was correctly withheld, but that Global Affairs incorrectly applied solicitor-client privilege to a memorandum.

The Court also found insufficient evidence that the Minister properly exercised discretion regarding the privileged information.

The application was allowed in part.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to partially stay an action initiated by two former civilian RCMP members, Francisco Chaves and Dayna Young.

The plaintiffs alleged abuse of authority, bullying, and harassment during their employment, particularly under Cameron Ortis, and unfair treatment after his arrest.

The Crown sought a stay, arguing that Mr. Chaves might be covered by a Quebec class proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant judicial economy, uncertainty regarding Mr. Chaves's inclusion in the Quebec class, and no real prejudice to the Crown if the action continued.

The court also noted that some aspects of the Ontario case might not be covered by the Quebec class action.

The Proposed Participants, asserting claims on behalf of Nunavik Inuit in an uncertified Quebec action, brought a motion seeking status to intervene or participate in the Federal Court class action in order to carve out their class or stay the proceedings.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding it was premature because the Federal Court action had not yet been certified.

The Court also held that the intervention would be unhelpful, prejudicial to the plaintiffs due to its lateness, and based on claims fundamentally different from those in the Federal Court action.