Syed Shahroz Ahmad

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions, the parties consensually resolved the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court ordered costs payable by the plaintiffs/appellants to the various defendants/respondents in the total amount of $92,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions arising from a privacy breach at two hospitals.

Rogue hospital employees accessed the contact information of maternity patients and sold it to RESP salespeople.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the accessed information (names, addresses, phone numbers, and basic hospital visit details) was personal but not highly private, and that the intrusion would not be regarded by a reasonable person as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish.

Although the motions judge erred in his class definition, the appeal was dismissed because the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion were not met.

The applicant was successful on a motion for a certificate of pending litigation and in defeating a cross-motion to stay the application.

In determining costs, the court rejected the applicant's revised costs outline, which substantially increased the hours claimed and was submitted after the fact, relying instead on the initial costs outline to protect the integrity of the process.

The court awarded the applicant $30,000 in partial indemnity costs, which included full indemnity costs for an unreasonable motion brought against the applicant's representative.

The moving party sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a commercial property, claiming an interest based on a Sales Representation Agreement.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to stay or dismiss the application, arguing the moving party was an unregistered broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act (REBBA) and operated under an unregistered business name contrary to the Business Names Act (BNA).

The Master dismissed the cross-motion, finding the transaction was part of an ongoing business venture rather than a simple real estate trade, and that the business name non-registration was inadvertent.

The Master granted the CPL, noting the moving party established a triable issue regarding its interest in the property, but ordered the CPL postponed to existing and construction financing to avoid harming the development project.