Sylvie Rodrigue

The plaintiff, David Trueman, in a proposed class action, sought leave to amend the Fourth Amended Statement of Claim to add a new sub-class and particularize existing claims.

The proposed amendments related to allegations that Rogers Communications and Rogers Bank obtained private credit information through unauthorized soft credit checks to pre-approve and issue unsolicited credit cards, in breach of privacy rights and contract.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments introduced a new, time-barred claim based on a breach of Bank Act regulations.

The court found that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather particularized existing claims for breach of contract and privacy, with the issuance of unsolicited credit cards being a consequence of the alleged wrongful conduct.

Therefore, no limitation period issue arose.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the statement of claim and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of a $25 million settlement in two pharmaceutical class actions alleging that the diabetes drug PIO caused bladder cancer and that the defendants failed to warn of this risk.

The court initially raised concerns about the settlement amount compared to a $2.4 billion U.S. settlement, but approved it after class counsel provided evidence of recent scientific studies undermining causation and differences in market size and litigation risk.

The court also approved class counsel's 30% contingency fee and awarded a reduced honorarium of $1,500 to each representative plaintiff.

This is a class proceeding concerning alleged defects in Toyota Tundra, Tacoma, and Sequoia vehicle frames.

The plaintiffs and defendant reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, which included a voluntary notice, recall, inspection, repair, and replacement program for affected vehicles.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in coordination with the Quebec Superior Court, approved the settlement under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees and disbursements, and modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs, noting that these payments were separate from the class benefits.

The court retained jurisdiction to supervise the settlement's implementation and required a final report from the claims administrator.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the defendant employer for unpaid overtime.

The proposed class included non-management employees subject to the defendant's overtime policy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed valid causes of action in breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The court certified the action, finding that there was an identifiable class, common issues regarding systemic practices and aggregate damages, that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and that the plaintiff was an appropriate representative.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order approving the plaintiff's discovery plan in a class action for unpaid overtime.

The defendants argued the order conflicted with established principles of relevance in class actions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision on relevance and concluding it was not desirable to grant leave.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding for unpaid overtime on behalf of approximately 7,800 employees.

The defendants argued the certification decision conflicted with appellate authority regarding systemic practices and misclassification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the plaintiff had properly framed the case around a systemic policy rather than individual misclassification.

The plaintiff in a certified class action brought a motion to strike the defendants' reply factum filed on a motion for leave to appeal.

The plaintiff argued the reply factum violated Rule 61.03.1(11) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by re-arguing issues rather than responding to new issues.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's responding factum did not raise new issues but merely responded to the defendants' original arguments.

The motion was granted, the reply factum was struck, and costs of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

This costs decision followed a successful certification motion in a proposed class proceeding.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs after the date of a Rule 49 offer, arguing that the certification result met or exceeded the offer terms.

The court accepted that submission, adjusted counsel hourly rates to conform with the costs grid, removed a legal research disbursement, reviewed comparable historical certification costs awards, and fixed fair and reasonable costs at $175,000 all-inclusive.

After deducting prior costs awarded to the responding parties on a refusals motion, the court ordered payment of $161,500 forthwith.

On a certification motion in a proposed overtime class action against a federally regulated trucking employer, the court held that the claim was not framed as a misclassification case requiring individualized overtime entitlement determinations, but as a systemic challenge to the employer’s overtime policies, practices, and record-keeping.

Applying the s. 5(1)(c) commonality requirement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court found some basis in fact for most proposed common issues, including contractual incorporation of overtime obligations, alleged systemic avoidance of overtime, good faith duties, negligence-based record-keeping duties, unjust enrichment, the effect of an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, class-wide liability, aggregate damages, and punitive damages.

The court refused to certify issues that depended on individual proof of actual overtime entitlement or that were too broad or unnecessary.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Following the successful appeal by the defendant overturning the certification of a proposed class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $300,000.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued that no costs or a maximum of $50,000 should be awarded, citing the novel legal issues and public interest nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the novel points of law and access to justice considerations under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but held that the Act does not insulate representative plaintiffs from adverse costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $60,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant railway company misclassified first line supervisors as managerial employees to avoid paying overtime under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge certified the action but significantly redrafted the common issues, rejecting the plaintiff's proposed misclassification issue due to a lack of commonality.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge correctly rejected the misclassification issue because individualized assessments of job duties were required.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in certifying a reframed common issue about the minimum requirements for managerial status, as it suffered from the same lack of commonality.

The certification order was set aside.