Stephen Libin

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.

The plaintiff was injured after slipping on ice on a municipal sidewalk after exiting a bus.

She sued the City of Toronto and the TTC, and later added the City's winter maintenance contractor, Pave-Tar.

Pave-Tar and the TTC brought motions for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

Pave-Tar argued the claim against it was statute-barred, while the TTC argued it owed no duty of care.

The court dismissed both motions, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period and concluding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to the intertwined facts and risk of inconsistent findings at trial.

Following settlement of a negligence action concerning damage at a nuclear generating station, the defendant brought a third party claim against its lawyers alleging professional negligence in drafting and advising on contractual arrangements and settlement strategy.

The lawyers in turn issued a fourth party claim against the original defendants and the plaintiff seeking contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The court held that the third party claim limited recovery to the lawyers’ proportionate degree of fault, meaning they could never be liable for damages attributable to others.

Because contribution rights arise only where a party may be required to pay more than its proportionate share of the plaintiff’s damages, the fourth party claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The claim was struck under rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.