Tim Pinos

Following the dismissal of a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in the Canadian Hockey League, the plaintiffs brought a motion under section 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve a plan to transition the proceeding into multiple joinder actions.

The court reviewed the competing Section 7 Plans submitted by the plaintiffs and defendants and found both to be procedurally flawed and overreaching.

The court proposed its own Draft Section 7 Plan designed to facilitate the commencement of up to 60 joinder actions while respecting the court's jurisdictional limits and the parties' procedural rights.

The motion was adjourned to a second phase for the parties to revise and discuss the court's draft plan.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, brought a proposed class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues, and 60 individual teams, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability for widespread hazing, bullying, and abuse.

The out-of-province defendants brought a motion challenging the court's jurisdiction, which was dismissed as the court found they carried on business in Ontario.

The defendants also brought a Ragoonanan motion, which was granted because the representative plaintiffs only had personal causes of action against five of the 60 teams.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims failed the cause of action, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria, primarily because there was no basis for collective liability among the independent teams.

However, the court utilized sections 7, 12, and 25 of the Class Proceedings Act to permit the action to continue as individual joinder actions, ordering the plaintiffs to prepare an Individual Issues Protocol.

The appellant hotel owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent hotel manager an early termination fee of $1,026,652.44 plus costs.

The owner had terminated a 10-year hotel management agreement after approximately 10 months, claiming cause based on alleged breaches by the manager.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The court rejected the owner's arguments regarding alleged breaches concerning an interim manager's work visa status, the appointment of an unqualified general manager, the manager's failure to timely terminate the general manager, and alleged budget preparation violations.

The court found that the owner had approved the general manager's hiring, that the manager had cured the termination issue within the required 30-day period, and that the owner could not rely on its own refusal to approve the annual plan as grounds for termination for cause.

The plaintiffs appealed a decision upholding the defendants' claim of litigation privilege over an expert engineer's file.

Before the appeal was heard, the defendants produced the expert's report and underlying file, rendering the appeal moot.

The Divisional Court awarded the plaintiffs $15,000 in costs for the appeal, the leave motion, and the appeal below, finding that the defendants' tactical delay in obtaining the report and claiming privilege unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and increased costs, particularly given the defendants' spoliation defence.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining jurisdiction over the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the real and substantial connection test had not been met, whether under the Muscutt or Van Breda framework.

The Court also found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed the Chief Returning Officer's rejection of the respondent's nomination for a student position on the Governing Council.

The lower court found a conflict between the Election Guidelines, which required a candidate to be a member of their constituency throughout the election period, and the University of Toronto Act, which stated every student is eligible for election.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no conflict.

The Court held that 'eligible' does not mean 'entitled,' and the guideline was a valid procedural rule establishing a connection with a constituency.