Vanessa Glasser

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

The defendants requested an extension of time to deliver their amended statements of defence or motion materials in response to the plaintiff's forthcoming amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff opposed the extension for the defence but agreed to an extension for costs submissions.

The court granted the defendants' request, extending all timelines to thirty days for all parties.

The plaintiff First Nation brought a hybrid motion seeking to determine an issue of law before trial, amend its statement of claim to increase damages to $2 billion and add particulars regarding the 'Headlands Issue', and compel answers to questions refused during discovery.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they asserted a new, statute-barred cause of action, lacked a necessary party (Canada), and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion to determine an issue of law, finding the factual record was disputed.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, holding it was not plain and obvious that the claims were statute-barred or doomed to fail without Canada, but required the plaintiff to deliver a technically compliant pleading.

The refusals motion was largely dismissed, with only four questions ordered to be answered.

Ontario brought a motion to adjourn the Stage Three trial of a complex treaty rights claim sine die, pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the appeal of Stage One and Stage Two.

The plaintiffs, interveners, and Canada opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for an adjournment, balancing the interests of the parties and the administration of justice.

The court found that the risk of proceeding was manageable, while the prejudice to the plaintiffs and the administration of justice caused by further delay would be significant.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

The proposed intervenor, Shoal Lake #40 First Nation, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party or friend of the court in an action for damages brought by Iskatewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation against the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Ontario.

The underlying action sought compensation for the taking of water from Shoal Lake pursuant to a 1913 Order in Council.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had no direct interest in the plaintiff's specific claim for damages, that its participation would cause delay, and that it was free to commence its own action for compensation.

The plaintiffs, promoters of a wind farm project, brought a motion to compel answers to questions and production of documents refused by the Crown during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown's refusal to issue a Renewable Energy Approval was due to bad faith political interference during the 2014 provincial election.

The Crown argued the questions were res judicata and the documents were not in its control or were protected by Cabinet privilege.

The Master granted the motion, finding the issues were not res judicata, the documents were relevant and within the Crown's control, and the public interest in disclosure outweighed any claim of Cabinet privilege.

The plaintiff First Nation brought an action against Canada and Ontario for failing to set aside a reserve for them under Treaty No. 9 in 1906.

The parties agreed that a reserve should have been set aside.

The threshold issue at trial was determining the 'crystallization date'—the point in time at which the band's population should be assessed to calculate the size of the reserve.

The plaintiffs argued the population should be determined as of the date the reserve is actually set aside or the date of the court's declaration.

The Crown argued the population should be determined as of the date the treaty was made.

The court held that the common intention of the parties, based on the text of the treaty and its historical context, was that reserves were to be set aside and sized according to the population at the time the treaty was made.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of private issuers who operate ServiceOntario outlets, alleging that Ontario breached its duty of good faith and acted unreasonably in exercising its unilateral discretion to set their compensation.

The plaintiff argued that the compensation was inadequate and failed to keep pace with expenses.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of dishonesty or bad faith by Ontario.

The court held that the duty of good faith applies to the performance of the contract, not to ensuring a commercially reasonable outcome, and that Ontario's compensation decisions were not commercially unreasonable in any event.

The alternative claim for unjust enrichment was also dismissed as the contract constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.