Tina Q. Yang

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 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 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 plaintiffs brought a motion to appeal the decision of a Prothonotary who granted Canada's motion to stay their mass tort proceedings under s. 50.1 of the Federal Courts Act.

The proceedings relate to the administration of the anti-malarial drug mefloquine to Canadian Armed Forces members.

The stay was granted because Canada intends to institute a third party claim for contribution and indemnity against the drug's manufacturer, Roche, over which the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction.

The Court upheld the Prothonotary's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the determination that Canada had a genuine desire to bring the claim, nor any correctness error in the finding that the third party claim is grounded in provincial tort law rather than a comprehensive federal statutory framework.

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.

The plaintiff, having successfully certified a class action against BMW, sought substantial indemnity costs for the certification motion, totaling $367,210.28.

BMW proposed a costs award between $225,000 and $285,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $300,000 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that Rule 49 (Offer to Settle) is an ill fit for certification motions and that defendants are entitled to resist certification without incurring punitive costs, provided their conduct does not unnecessarily lengthen proceedings.

The court also largely rejected BMW's arguments of overbilling by class counsel.

A case management conference was held to schedule two motions for leave to appeal a decision appointing carriage counsel in a class action.

The court established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, directed the creation of a joint record and electronic drop box, and ordered that the motions proceed in writing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

Three competing groups of law firms sought carriage of a proposed class action against LifeLabs following a massive data breach affecting 15 million patients.

The court evaluated the competing proposals based on factors including the experience of counsel, overall approach, and proposed fee arrangements.

Carriage was awarded to the McPhadden Group (the Carter action) because their proposal for a single national class action was preferred over parallel actions, and their proposed contingency fee arrangement was significantly more cost-effective for the class.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding alleged defects in the power steering systems of certain Mini Cooper vehicles.

The plaintiff alleged the defects could cause a dangerous loss of power steering or a vehicle fire.

The defendants admitted the power steering system was defective but denied it posed an unreasonable safety risk or caused fires.

The court found that the plaintiff had pleaded a viable cause of action in negligence and met the 'some basis in fact' standard for the remaining certification criteria, including an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff.

The certification motion was granted.

The plaintiffs in a class action sought leave to amend their claim to add Graham Turner as a defendant, alleging personal liability for knowing receipt of trust funds and professional negligence related to a tax shelter program.

Turner opposed, arguing the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, asserting the plaintiffs could have discovered the material facts earlier through due diligence, including publicly available corporate records.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that it could not make a specific finding of fact that the limitation period had expired, particularly regarding Turner's "control" of Escrowagent and his role as counsel, which were not readily discoverable.

Turner was permitted to raise the limitations defence at trial.

The defendants sought costs following their success on two interlocutory motions in a proposed class action: the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for document production and the granting of the defendants' motion to strike inadmissible affidavit evidence.

The plaintiff argued for a significantly reduced costs award, citing divided success and the novelty of the production issue.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding no divided success and that the defendants' costs were reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 all inclusive, payable to the defendants in any event of the certification motion.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action brought a refusals motion to compel the defendant, Bruce Monk, to answer 31 questions refused and 6 questions taken under advisement during his examination for discovery.

The underlying action involves allegations that the defendant took intimate photographs of ballet students.

The refused questions primarily related to photographs of non-class members, including former students and staff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions to be immaterial, irrelevant, disproportionate, and an overreaching fishing expedition, noting that discovery in class proceedings is generally restricted to certified common issues.

The defendants in a proposed class action regarding allegedly defective power steering in MINI Cooper vehicles brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the plaintiff for the certification motion.

The impugned evidence consisted of charts compiling consumer complaints from a US regulatory database.

The court granted the motion, finding the evidence to be inadmissible multiple-level hearsay.

The court held that even on the lower 'some basis in fact' standard applicable to certification motions, evidence must meet usual admissibility criteria, and the prejudicial effect of the 400 pages of complaints outweighed any probative value.

In a proposed class action regarding allegedly defective power steering in MINI Cooper vehicles, the plaintiff moved under Rule 30.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect documents referenced in the defendants' statement of defence.

The defendants refused, arguing the requests were for non-specific documents and were premature given the pending certification motion.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the right to inspect under Rule 30.04(2) is not absolute and the court retains discretion under Rule 30.04(5) to refuse production based on disproportionality and untimeliness.

The court found the plaintiff's request was an improper attempt to obtain pre-certification documentary discovery without showing relevance to the certification criteria.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for document production in a proposed class proceeding regarding a data breach, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $9,281.82.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs due to divided success, or alternatively $2,500 or $5,000.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs' final alternative submission and awarded the defendants costs fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

In a proposed class action arising from data breaches, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking production of Yahoo's database of 16.9 million Canadian users to cross-examine the defendants' expert on the certification motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the onus of explaining how access to the database was relevant to the certification motion and that the request was disproportionate.

This is a costs endorsement following the certification of a class action.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded in certifying their action, sought substantial costs totaling over $368,000.

The court significantly reduced the requested amount, disallowing costs related to scheduling, a companion motion in Quebec, and expert fees/counsel time for experts at the certification stage.

The court found that the defendant's opposition to certification was modest and did not constitute a "full attack" warranting such extensive costs at that stage.

The final award was $84,500 plus HST in partial indemnity costs and $27,119.34 in disbursements.

This decision concerns a consent certification motion in a class action arising from a six-alarm electrical fire at 650 Parliament Street, Toronto, which displaced hundreds of tenants.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding against the core defendants, Parwell Investments Inc. and 650 Parliament (LHB) Investments Limited, on the common issue of negligence.

The certification was granted based on the parties' agreement, satisfying the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including an identifiable class, common issues, preferability of a class proceeding, and suitable representative plaintiffs.

The order defined the class, appointed representative plaintiffs, declared negligence as the cause of action, and outlined specific common issues related to the defendants' duty and breach of care concerning the building's design, construction, operation, maintenance, and electrical systems.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The court awarded costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a class action.

The defendants sought $255,707.13, while the plaintiffs argued for no costs or $75,000, citing public interest and novel legal issues.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no public interest dimension as no losses were sustained and the defendant reacted responsibly to the cyber-hack.

The court also found the legal issues not novel, despite involving a cyber-attack, as similar incidents have led to numerous class actions.

Applying its established approach to costs in certification motions, the court adhered to the Grid rates for hourly fees, explicitly rejecting the defendants' argument for 60% of actual rates.

After considering a Grid-compliant outline of $176,459 and a 10% reduction for additional work attributed to the defendant, the court fixed an all-inclusive costs award of $160,000 to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.