Tina Q. Yang

This proposed class action alleged that Bell Mobility Inc. breached the privacy rights of its data service customers by using their personal information for its "Relevant Advertising Program" (RAP) without consent.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action.

The court certified the action, including all pleaded causes of action (contract, waiver of tort, negligence, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion, consumer protection legislation, and Quebec civil law claims) and common issues.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that some claims were redundant and made the class proceeding unmanageable, affirming that it is not the judge's role at certification to pare down properly pleaded causes of action.

The decision also addressed the availability and methodology for aggregate damages.

An anonymous hacker stole personal information from Casino Rama's computer system, affecting customers, employees, and suppliers.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action for negligence, breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, and other privacy torts.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The court found that claims for breach of confidence and publicity given to private life were bound to fail.

While negligence, breach of contract, and intrusion upon seclusion were deemed viable causes of action, the common issues requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was not satisfied.

The court determined that the proposed common issues required too much individual inquiry, particularly regarding the duty and standard of care, and the varying sensitivity of stolen information.

The class definition was also found to be overbroad, specifically including unionized employees whose claims fell under exclusive labour arbitration jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, appealed a motion judge's refusal to certify five causes of action in their class proceeding against the Canadian Hockey League and its clubs, and appealed the costs order.

The defendants sought leave to cross-appeal the certification of the action, alleging a conflict of interest among class members.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal on certification, finding the motion judge erred in principle by using a proportionality analysis to dismiss properly pleaded causes of action as redundant.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal, finding no conflict of interest.

On costs, the court upheld the motion judge's decision to make a portion of the plaintiffs' costs payable in the cause, but allowed the appeal regarding the U.S. defendants' costs, ordering that they be paid by the Law Foundation of Ontario rather than the plaintiffs, pursuant to the Law Society Act.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a national class action against Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, concerning alleged non-repairable defects in the transmissions of Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta automobiles.

The parties had reached a tentative settlement.

The court granted the consent order for certification, finding that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action (breach of contract/warranty and Civil Code of Quebec provisions), an identifiable class, common issues, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court also approved the form and plan for distribution of the notice to the class.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove he was employed at the time of the accident or that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, noting his continued participation in physical sports and lack of business documentation.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for medical benefits, relying on an insurer's examination report indicating that maximum medical recovery had been achieved and finding insufficient evidence that further chiropractic treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The proposed representative plaintiffs in a class action arising from a cyberattack brought a motion for the production of third-party cybersecurity reports (the Mandiant Reports) prior to cross-examining the defendants' affiant on a certification motion.

The defendants opposed production, claiming privilege.

The court held that by relying on the investigation's findings regarding the size and scope of the class in their affidavit, the defendants waived privilege over those specific aspects of the reports.

Applying principles of waiver, relevance, and proportionality, the court ordered the defendants to produce only the excerpts of the reports relating to the size and scope of the class.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class action by former junior hockey players seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, the court determined the costs awards.

The plaintiffs succeeded in certifying the action against the Canadian teams but failed against the American teams.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,212,065.63 in partial indemnity costs, with $500,000 payable forthwith and the balance in the cause.

The American teams were awarded $200,000 in costs, which the court ordered to be credited against the plaintiffs' award, akin to a Bullock or Sanderson order, reflecting that both sides were responsible for the excessive litigation expense.

The plaintiffs, former players in the Ontario Hockey League, brought a motion to certify a class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its regional leagues, and their respective teams.

The plaintiffs alleged that the players were employees and were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay under employment standards legislation.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding for the claims of breach of employment statutes and unjust enrichment against the Ontario teams.

The court declined to certify the claims against the U.S. teams, finding that a class action in Ontario was not the preferable procedure for those claims.

The court also declined to certify redundant causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence, breach of good faith, conspiracy, and waiver of tort.

The court found that the representative plaintiffs were adequate and had no disqualifying conflict of interest with current players.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a proposed settlement in a certified class action regarding a mass termination without notice or severance pay.

The employer had gone bankrupt, leaving the plaintiffs to pursue the directors and officers and their liability insurance policy.

After complex litigation and negotiations regarding the depletion of the insurance policy, a settlement was reached for approximately $1.77 million.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, providing significant recovery where there was high risk of none.

The court also approved class counsel's fee request of one-third of the settlement amount, noting the high risk undertaken and the excellent result achieved.

The plaintiff brought a certification motion for a class action regarding systemic negligence.

During the hearing, the judge noted a statement in the plaintiff's factum suggesting the judge had previously stated the case was ideally suited for a class action.

Concerned about a reasonable apprehension of bias, the judge inquired about the comment.

After clarification that the comment was misreported and actually related to US class action regimes, the judge adjourned the first day to allow parties to consider a recusal motion.

Neither party wished to bring a recusal motion.

The plaintiff requested an adjournment due to lost hearing time, which the Crown did not oppose.

The hearing was adjourned.

The moving party defendant sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to serve a Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim against foreign defendants in a proposed class proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the motions judge was in the best position to interpret his own prior order regarding amendments for the purpose of certification.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance warranting appellate consideration.

In a proposed national class action concerning hip devices, the plaintiff moved without notice for an extension of time to serve the statement of claim on foreign defendants in the Netherlands and China.

The court held that proceeding without notice was impracticable in the circumstances, where the service difficulty itself arose from the mechanics of Hague Convention service.

Applying the prejudice-based framework governing extensions of time for service, the court found the plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to effect service within six months and that there was no discernable prejudice caused by the delay.

The time for service was extended to December 31, 2015.