Valérie Lord

On an interim spoken-to appearance concerning the terms of an adjournment, the court considered whether the balance of an ex parte Mareva injunction should continue until the full motion hearing.

Applying the elevated Mareva injunction standard, the court expressed doubts on the limited record that the moving parties had shown a strong prima facie fraud case, and also noted concerns about possible non-disclosure at the original without-notice hearing, including omitted investment risk acknowledgments.

The court further found that, over the short adjournment period, the risk of irreparable harm appeared greater to the responding parties because continuation of the injunction could jeopardize financing, business operations, and the individual defendants' home.

Without prejudice to the ultimate motion judge, the remaining Mareva injunction was lifted.

The plaintiffs brought actions against Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) under the Montreal Convention following the shoot-down of Flight PS752 by Iranian military surface-to-air missiles shortly after takeoff from Tehran.

UIA admitted the shoot-down was an 'accident' under the Convention, making it strictly liable, but sought to limit its liability by proving it was not negligent in allowing the flight to depart.

The Superior Court of Justice found that UIA failed to meet the standard of care for a reasonable airline operating in or near a conflict zone, as it did not conduct a proper security threat risk assessment or any safety risk assessment, and failed to gather available intelligence or brief the flight commander.

The court held that UIA failed to prove its negligence did not cause the passengers' deaths or that the harm was too remote, resulting in unlimited liability for the airline.

This decision concerns the approval of a class action settlement and associated legal fees and honoraria following an aircraft accident.

The class action arose from a November 9, 2018 incident where Fly Jamaica Flight OJ 256 made an emergency landing, resulting in substantial damage and passenger injuries.

After extensive negotiations, a $5,550,000.00 lump sum settlement was reached.

The court approved the settlement agreement, certified the action against newly added defendants for settlement purposes, approved class counsel's fees of 25% of the settlement amount plus disbursements, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for each representative plaintiff.

The court found the settlement to be within the range of reasonableness and the fees to be fair and reasonable.

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 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 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.

A class member, Loyd Mark Noel, brought a motion for permission to opt out of a class proceeding after the specified deadline had passed.

Mr. Noel had inadvertently missed the deadline despite having already commenced an individual lawsuit related to the same incident.

The motion was unopposed by both the class plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel.

The court granted permission, exercising its discretion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the inadvertent error and the existence of an individual action justified the late opt-out, with no adverse impact on the class proceeding.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action arising from an airline accident involving a flight operated by Fly Jamaica Airways and an aircraft manufactured by Boeing.

The court found that the criteria under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act were met, including the 'some basis in fact' standard, and certified the action on consent.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' unopposed requests to amend their pleadings to name the pilots and ordered the airline to disclose the passenger list to facilitate notice to the class.

The plaintiffs brought a motion, with the defendants' consent, to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes, approve a settlement agreement, approve the plan for disseminating notices, approve the forms of the notices, and grant a privacy and disclosure order.

The class action concerned defective implantable cardioverter or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators manufactured by the defendants, which were prone to premature battery depletion.

The court found that all criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied, noting that these criteria may be applied less rigorously in a settlement context.

The motion was granted, approving the certification for settlement, the settlement agreement, and related procedural orders.

This initial case conference for a proposed class action addressed the consolidation of two actions, the defendant Boeing Company's contemplation of a jurisdictional challenge, and the defendant Fly Jamaica Airways Ltd.'s apparent cessation of operations, with its insurer undertaking the defense.

A preservation notice was sent to Fly Jamaica.

The certification motion was scheduled for September 3, 2019.