Travis Allen Henderson

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Robert Smith dated July 7, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for Court approval of the Fee Agreement reached in relation to the partial settlement of the Day Scholars class proceeding.

Unlike many class actions, Class Counsel worked on a fee-for-service basis rather than a contingency agreement.

The Court found the proposed fees, which included an $8.3 million payment for past fees, to be fair and reasonable given the exceptional results achieved, the complexity of the litigation, and the significant time expended.

The Court also approved $15,000 honoraria payments to the Representative Plaintiffs for their extraordinary efforts and personal sacrifices.

Following a successful motion for class action certification regarding PFAS groundwater contamination, the plaintiffs sought costs against the unsuccessful defendant, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).

A successful co-defendant, Carleton University, sought costs against the plaintiffs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57, the court ordered NRC to pay the plaintiffs $207,500 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Carleton University $20,000 plus HST in costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and Carleton University, alleging that PFAS contaminants from NRC's National Fire Laboratory migrated into the groundwater of adjacent properties.

The court certified the class action against NRC for claims in strict liability, nuisance, negligence, and statutory breaches, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court dismissed the claim for punitive damages against NRC and refused to certify the common issues against Carleton University due to a lack of evidence connecting its activities to the contamination.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent to certify a class action on behalf of Métis and non-status Indigenous persons who were placed in the care of non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents and lost their Indigenous identity, following the 60s Scoop class action.

The Federal Court found the mandatory requirements of Rule 334.16 of the Federal Courts Rules were met, noting that the claim disclosed a cause of action, proposed an identifiable class and common questions, and that a national class proceeding was the preferred procedure.

The Court granted the motion to certify the class action.

The court was tasked with approving legal fees for class counsel in the Brown action, part of the Sixties Scoop national settlement.

The supervising judge previously rejected a $75 million total fee agreement as excessive, suggesting class counsel in Brown should receive $25 million and counsel in the companion Riddle action $12.5 million.

However, after the Federal Court awarded the maximum $37.5 million to class counsel in Riddle, the court concluded it would be extremely unfair to award class counsel in Brown, who did the heavy lifting, anything less.

Consequently, the court approved the maximum $37.5 million in legal fees for class counsel in Brown.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion to approve a national settlement agreement regarding the 'Sixties Scoop' class action.

The settlement provided between $550 million and $800 million in compensation and established a $50 million national foundation for reconciliation.

The court found the core settlement provisions fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

However, the court refused to approve the $75 million legal fees provision, finding it excessive and unreasonable in the context of a mega-fund settlement, and directed that the legal fees provision be de-linked from the rest of the settlement.

The Government of British Columbia and a class of consumers brought separate actions against tobacco companies regarding the health impacts of smoking and 'light' cigarettes.

The tobacco companies issued third-party notices against the Government of Canada, claiming contribution and indemnity based on negligent misrepresentation, negligent design, failure to warn, and statutory liability.

Canada brought motions to strike the third-party claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Canada's appeals and struck all third-party claims.

The Court held that Canada's alleged representations and design decisions regarding low-tar cigarettes were core government policy decisions immune from tort liability.

Furthermore, Canada did not qualify as a 'manufacturer' or 'supplier' under the relevant provincial statutes.

The appellant occupier appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to a pizza delivery driver who slipped and fell on an unplowed path on the premises.

The trial judge found the occupier 50% liable due to inadequate lighting and signage directing visitors to the safe, plowed staircase.

On appeal, the occupier argued that inadequate lighting was not specifically pleaded and that the trial judge erred in her findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the pleadings regarding failure to maintain safe pathways were broad enough to include lighting, the issue was raised at trial without objection, and there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings on breach of duty and causation.