Tina Q. Yang

A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.

The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.

This is a costs decision arising from a class action certification motion concerning the now-defunct "birth alerts" policy issued by Children's Aid Societies in Ontario.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the province of Ontario and 50 CAS defendants on behalf of mothers claiming compensation for discriminatory treatment.

The court certified the action against Ontario but denied certification against the CAS defendants due to structural defects in the pleading (the Ragoonanan problem).

The plaintiffs settled with Ontario for $300,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The CAS defendants sought $564,318.61 in costs.

The court reduced this amount to $335,000, applying a 40% discount under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act to reflect the public interest nature of the case and access to justice concerns.

This decision certifies a class action against the Province of Ontario regarding the issuance of "Birth Alerts" by Ontario children's aid societies (CASs), but declines to certify the action against the CASs themselves.

The court finds that the claims against the CASs suffer from the "Ragoonanan problem"—the lack of a representative plaintiff with a claim against each defendant—and that the CASs acted independently, not collectively.

The action against Ontario, however, is certified on the basis of negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as the Province had oversight authority and failed to act to stop the practice despite being able to do so.

The court sets out the certified class, common issues, and clarifies the preferable procedure for such claims.

The Moving Defendants, Fulton Development Inc. and 2580867 Ontario Corp., brought a motion to strike all or portions of the Plaintiffs' statement of claim, which included derivative and oppression claims.

The claims arose from a failed real estate transaction, a $500,000 loan, and the alleged misappropriation and improper distribution of a $327,500 refunded deposit by certain directors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the derivative and oppression claims viable and noting that the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a prior order granting leave for the derivative action.

On consent, a crossclaim and counterclaim from a related 2019 action were consolidated with the current action, and the balance of the 2019 action was stayed.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action concerning failed syndicated mortgage investments brought a motion to lift a stay of proceedings and dismiss the action against the ADI Defendants.

A settlement had been reached in a related action (the FAAN Action) providing over $18.3 million to the investors, representing over 91% of the principal owed by the ADI Defendants.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, and approved the dismissal of the class action against the ADI Defendants without costs, as there was no prejudice to the putative class members.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which had previously dismissed both the appellant's appeal and the respondents' cross-appeal.

The Court determined the costs payable, awarding the primary respondents $50,000 from the appellant, despite the respondents seeking over $71,000 and the appellant proposing $40,000.

The Court was not persuaded by the appellant's public interest argument or the relevance of costs awarded in a comparable case that were based on party agreement.

Additionally, the Law Foundation of Ontario, which responded to the cross-appeal, was awarded $10,000 in costs from the primary respondents.

The appellant, John Peters, appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to bring a statutory cause of action under the Securities Act for alleged failure to disclose a material change, and for class action certification.

The alleged material change was a September 4, 2018, telephone call where the PPSC advised SNC-Lavalin that it would not be invited to negotiate a remediation agreement.

The motion judge found no reasonable possibility that the call constituted a "change" in SNC's business, operations, or capital.

SNC-Lavalin cross-appealed the costs order, which reduced their costs due to the case's legal novelty and public interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, affirming the motion judge's interpretation of "material change" and application of the leave test, and the cross-appeal, upholding the discretionary costs decision.

This appeal concerned an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, a medical resident, sued an investigation firm and its investigator for defamation based on executive summaries of a workplace harassment investigation.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the summaries related to a matter of public interest, were protected by qualified privilege, and lacked evidence of malice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the expressions related to public interest due to the nature of the educational institution, media attention, and public safety concerns, and were protected by qualified privilege.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to defer filing its statement of defence until after the certification motion in a proposed class proceeding regarding immigration detention.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the presumption that a defendant must file a statement of defence before certification unless special circumstances justify a deferral.

The court found that the legal issues were well-defined and the defendant's concerns about the complexity and resources required to prepare the defence conflated pleading preparation with discovery or trial preparation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a $10 million settlement in a certified class action against a ballet school and a former instructor/photographer for alleged sexual assault and privacy breaches.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of Class Counsel's fees and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs and certain class members.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved Class Counsel's fee request of $2.25 million.

However, the court declined to approve the requested honoraria, holding on principle that the practice of awarding a stipend to representative plaintiffs for prosecuting a civil claim is contrary to the administration of justice and should be stopped.

The plaintiffs in a putative class proceeding regarding a cyber-breach of the defendant's computer systems sought approval of a notice plan for a proposed settlement.

The court approved the notice plan, which included direct notice to known affected individuals and indirect notice via press release and social media, finding it maximized breadth while minimizing costs.

The court ordered one amendment to include the Zoom link for the upcoming settlement approval hearing.

The defendants sought a reconsideration of a costs decision following a class action certification motion, arguing for no costs due to divided success because only one of the plaintiffs' two distinct cases was certified.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the joinder of claims was proper under the Rules of Civil Procedure and consistent with the principle of avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The original costs award of $150,000 to the plaintiffs was confirmed.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The parties agreed that $150,000, all inclusive, was a fair and reasonable amount for the certification motion, which included $5,000 for a motion to strike an affidavit.

The defendants did not deliver any costs submissions opposing the request.

The court found the agreed amount to be fair and reasonable and awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a plastic surgeon and his clinic for breach of privacy.

The claims involved two main grievances: the surreptitious video surveillance of patients in the clinic (the Surveillance Complaint) and the posting of patient images on social media without valid consent (the Social Media Complaint).

The court certified the Surveillance Complaint, finding it met all criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court declined to certify the Social Media Complaint, concluding that the issue of valid consent was highly idiosyncratic and required individual inquiries, meaning it failed the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

The plaintiffs in a proposed privacy class action brought a preliminary motion to strike the complete clinical medical charts and medical records of the plaintiffs and two deponents, which were included in the responding affidavits of the defendant doctor.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images on social media without consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the detailed medical records were irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the certification motion, as the action concerned privacy breaches rather than medical malpractice.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of certification.

The court granted the motion, striking evidence that was irrelevant, prejudicial, or detailed a College of Physicians and Surgeons investigation contrary to section 36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The defendants in a proposed class action for breach of privacy brought a preliminary motion to strike the expert report of Dr. Mary Anne Franks, proffered by the plaintiffs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants surreptitiously recorded patients and posted images online without consent.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that Dr. Franks' evidence regarding the social and cultural context of non-consensual image distribution and American law was not relevant or helpful to determining the common issues for certification.

In a proposed class action against a plastic surgeon for breach of privacy involving surreptitious video recording and unauthorized social media postings, the plaintiffs brought a preliminary motion for leave to deliver a supplementary affidavit regarding class size after cross-examinations had concluded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had provided their best information based on the plaintiffs' class definition, the supplementary evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, and allowing the affidavit would amount to prejudicial case-splitting.

The plaintiffs brought motions to compel the examination of a defendant on behalf of a corporate defendant and for further and better affidavits of documents from several defendants.

The parties agreed to dismiss the examination motion and portions of the production motion without prejudice.

The court ordered one defendant to produce certain financial documents relevant to personal enrichment and an itemized Schedule B list, but dismissed the remaining requests for further documents and better email descriptors, finding insufficient evidence of missing documents and that the current descriptors were proportionate.

The plaintiff in a certified class action moved for an order approving the condensed, short-form, and long-form notices of certification, the plan for their dissemination, and related matters including the appointment of a notice administrator and the production of class member information by the defendants.

The defendants did not oppose the relief sought.

The court granted the order, approving the notices and notice plan, appointing RicePoint Administration Inc. as the Notice Administrator, and compelling the defendants to provide vehicle identification numbers and class member contact information for notice purposes, while also addressing privacy concerns and opt-out procedures.