Victoria C. Yankou

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.

This decision certifies a class action against the Province of Ontario regarding the issuance of "Birth Alerts" by Ontario children's aid societies (CASs), but declines to certify the action against the CASs themselves.

The court finds that the claims against the CASs suffer from the "Ragoonanan problem"—the lack of a representative plaintiff with a claim against each defendant—and that the CASs acted independently, not collectively.

The action against Ontario, however, is certified on the basis of negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as the Province had oversight authority and failed to act to stop the practice despite being able to do so.

The court sets out the certified class, common issues, and clarifies the preferable procedure for such claims.

The plaintiff brought a certified class proceeding against the Province of Ontario regarding the Centre of Forensic Sciences' (CFS) retention of DNA profiles obtained from voluntarily provided reference samples.

The class members had signed consent forms stating that electronic data related to their samples would be permanently removed if they were excluded as a match to a crime scene.

The court found that the CFS's practice of merely anonymizing, rather than permanently removing, the DNA profiles vitiated the class members' consent.

This resulted in an unreasonable search and continued seizure in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court awarded aggregate Charter damages of $1,000 per class member ($7,267,000 total) for vindication and deterrence, but dismissed the claims for intrusion upon seclusion and punitive damages, finding the CFS acted in good faith.

This decision addresses two class actions, Francis v. Ontario and Chandra v. Ontario, concerning administrative segregation of inmates in Ontario correctional facilities.

The court heard motions for approval of a settlement in Chandra and a comprehensive claims protocol (Francis/Chandra Protocol) for both actions.

The Protocol establishes a three-track claims program for distributing aggregate damages and assessing individual claims.

The court granted both motions, finding the settlement and protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, commending counsel for their diligent and exemplary work in pursuing access to justice.

This endorsement concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees in two consolidated proceedings (Johnson et al. v. Ontario and Sabourin v. Ontario) alleging deplorable conditions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The court approved a settlement of $32,795,400 and class counsel fees of $9,388,207.92, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the significant litigation risks, the protracted nature of the actions, and the desire for a certain outcome for the thousands of affected class members.

The contingency fee agreements and the requested fees were also deemed fair and reasonable.

The defendants brought motions seeking to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, Julian Falconer and Falconers LLP, and for the production of portions of their file concerning advice given to plaintiff Bradley Blair regarding a complaint to the Ombudsman and a related judicial review application.

The defendants argued that counsel was a potential witness, an "unsworn witness" or had a conflict of interest based on a duty of loyalty, and that solicitor-client privilege had been waived.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no deemed waiver of privilege, no likelihood of counsel being a material witness, no "unsworn witness" concern given the nature of prior interactions, and no duty of loyalty conflict.

This was a consent motion for certification for settlement purposes in a class action.

The plaintiff, Adrian Chandra, sued the Ontario provincial government for negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter regarding the operation and management of provincial correctional institutions from September 18, 2018, to August 18, 2021, specifically concerning administrative segregation (solitary confinement).

This action effectively continued the class period from a previous case, Francis v. Ontario.

A settlement agreement was reached, adding an additional $13 million in aggregate damages for class members and establishing a protocol for distribution and individual issue resolution.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied and granted the motion.

On a motion in a prisoner segregation class proceeding, the court approved class counsel’s contingency fee agreement, a $7.5 million class counsel fee plus HST, the statutory levy payable to the Class Proceedings Fund, and a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court held that the litigation was extraordinarily risky, legally and factually complex, and had produced a very substantial result, including a $30 million aggregate damages award that had been upheld on appeal.

Applying class action fee approval principles, the court found the reduced 25% fee request fair and reasonable.

Applying the exceptional contribution framework for representative plaintiff honoraria, the court found the representative plaintiff’s leadership and assistance instrumental to the class’s success.

The applicant, a medical cosmetic care business operated by a registered nurse, sought a declaration that it was exempt from COVID-19 shutdown regulations because it provided health care services.

The Thunder Bay District Health Unit had directed the business to close on the basis that it provided personal care services.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, applying principles of statutory interpretation to find that the applicant's services were aesthetic and cosmetic in nature, not medical.

The court held that the business did not share the common features of health care clinics and was therefore subject to the mandatory closure of personal care services under the shutdown regulations.

The respondent, representing a class of seriously mentally ill inmates and inmates held in prolonged administrative segregation, brought a class action against Ontario for Charter breaches and systemic negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that Ontario's use of administrative segregation violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter, and awarded $30 million in aggregate Charter damages.

Ontario appealed, arguing that the Charter breaches were not established for all seriously mentally ill inmates, that Charter damages were inappropriate due to good governance concerns, and that the negligence claim was barred by statute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings that administrative segregation of seriously mentally ill inmates constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, that Ontario's clear disregard for inmates' rights justified Charter damages, and that the operational implementation of segregation policies grounded a valid systemic negligence claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of the rejection of his application for the Ontario Immigration Nominee Program under the Investor Component Stream.

The applicant proposed a $3 million investment in a private secondary school.

The application was rejected on the basis that it failed to demonstrate significant economic benefit to Ontario, failed to meet job creation commitments, and failed to establish the necessity of the proposed nominee positions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the respondent's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court also held that the discretionary, policy-oriented nature of the program attracted a low standard of procedural fairness, which was met through the issuance of a procedural fairness letter.

This proposed class action concerned the alleged retention of DNA profiles by the Province of Ontario after individuals voluntarily provided samples for forensic DNA analysis that did not match any samples obtained under the Criminal Code.

The plaintiff moved for certification of the action, alleging breach of the Criminal Code, violation of section 8 of the Charter, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The defendant consented to certification shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding and addressed two outstanding issues: costs of the certification motion and the temporal limit of the proposed class.

The court adopted a hybrid approach for costs, ordering half payable forthwith and half in the cause, and fixed the quantum at $124,504.38.

The court also ordered that the temporal limit of the class definition be "without prejudice to the plaintiff bringing a future motion within this proceeding to certify an amended class" to protect future class members.

The plaintiff, Conrey Francis, was successful on a summary judgment motion in a certified class action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

This decision concerns the costs endorsement following that motion.

Francis sought a partial indemnity award of $782,629.10 (inclusive of taxes) for fees and disbursements.

The Crown argued for a reduction, proposing $617,394.92 (exclusive of taxes).

The court agreed to a deduction of $28,493.78 for disbursements and some, but not all, of the Crown's arguments for fee reduction.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded Francis $720,000, all inclusive.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of inmates in Ontario correctional institutions who were placed in administrative segregation.

The plaintiff alleged that Ontario's use of administrative segregation constituted systemic negligence and violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found that administrative segregation as practiced in Ontario was equivalent to solitary confinement and caused severe psychological harm, particularly to inmates with serious mental illness.

The court held that Ontario breached the inmates' Charter rights and was liable for systemic negligence at the operational level.

The court awarded $30 million in aggregate damages for compensation, vindication, and deterrence.

The plaintiff, Conrey Francis, brought a proposed class action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, alleging negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to the use of Administrative Segregation (solitary confinement) in correctional facilities.

The parties sought approval of a consent order certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including an identifiable class, common issues of fact or law, preferability of a class proceeding, and an adequate representative plaintiff.

The certification motion was granted.

The plaintiffs brought motions on consent to certify two class actions against Ontario and Canada arising out of staffing-related lockdowns at Ontario correctional institutions.

The plaintiffs alleged systemic negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there were adequate representative plaintiffs.

The motions for certification were granted.

The respondents, a corporation and four individual shareholders, sued the Crown for damages arising from two theories of liability: forced incorporation and failure to enforce.

Under the forced incorporation theory, the respondents alleged that Crown misconduct forced them to incorporate their partnership, resulting in tax liability they would have avoided as Indians under section 87 of the Indian Act.

Under the failure to enforce theory, they alleged the Crown failed to properly implement an anti-smuggling initiative, causing them to compete unfairly against unlicensed contraband manufacturers.

The Crown appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the forced incorporation appeal, allowing it to proceed to trial, but allowed the failure to enforce appeal in part by striking the fiduciary duty claims while permitting the negligence and misfeasance claims to proceed.

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.

In a proposed class action brought by a former RCMP officer alleging systemic sexual harassment and discrimination against female RCMP members, the defendant Crown moved under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Crown argued that systemic negligence claims against the RCMP amounted to impermissible direct liability contrary to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, that no contractual employment relationship existed, and that the claim was statute‑barred.

The court held that the breach of contract claim was untenable because the employment relationship of RCMP members is statutory rather than contractual and struck that portion of the claim.

However, the court found it was not plain and obvious that the systemic negligence claim failed, holding that the pleadings could support vicarious liability of the Crown for collective misconduct of Crown servants.

The limitation issue could not be resolved on a pleadings motion.

The appellants, federal inmates, sought to certify a class action against the Crown after correctional officers seized t-shirts they had designed to commemorate inmates who died in custody.

The motion judge refused certification, finding that the inmate grievance process under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was the preferable procedure for resolving the dispute.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellants argued the motion judge erred in her preferability analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the framework from AIC Limited v. Fischer and made no error in principle in concluding that the grievance process could provide meaningful redress and access to justice.