Vlad Calina

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The parties appeared before the court to settle the terms of an Order approving a Section 7 Plan under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of a certification motion.

The court resolved three minor disputes regarding the form and content of the Order.

The court declined to immediately name Epiq as the Administrator, allowed class counsel to receive potential plaintiffs' contact information to facilitate notice, and agreed with the defendants that the Order should refer to a 'section 7 Plan' rather than an 'individual issues protocol'.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Rule 7 Order pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of their certification motion for a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in amateur hockey.

The court reviewed and settled the revised Draft Section 7 Plan, which transitions the proposed class action into up to 60 joinder actions against the defendant hockey teams and leagues.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-in procedures, and case management provisions, with minor revisions to protect player privacy and ensure efficient administration.

Following the dismissal of a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in the Canadian Hockey League, the plaintiffs brought a motion under section 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve a plan to transition the proceeding into multiple joinder actions.

The court reviewed the competing Section 7 Plans submitted by the plaintiffs and defendants and found both to be procedurally flawed and overreaching.

The court proposed its own Draft Section 7 Plan designed to facilitate the commencement of up to 60 joinder actions while respecting the court's jurisdictional limits and the parties' procedural rights.

The motion was adjourned to a second phase for the parties to revise and discuss the court's draft plan.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, brought a proposed class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues, and 60 individual teams, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability for widespread hazing, bullying, and abuse.

The out-of-province defendants brought a motion challenging the court's jurisdiction, which was dismissed as the court found they carried on business in Ontario.

The defendants also brought a Ragoonanan motion, which was granted because the representative plaintiffs only had personal causes of action against five of the 60 teams.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims failed the cause of action, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria, primarily because there was no basis for collective liability among the independent teams.

However, the court utilized sections 7, 12, and 25 of the Class Proceedings Act to permit the action to continue as individual joinder actions, ordering the plaintiffs to prepare an Individual Issues Protocol.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for re-certification of a class action, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded as the motion passed several certification hurdles before failing on the representative plaintiff requirement.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that partial success on hurdles does not equate to a divided result.

However, recognizing the difficult circumstances faced by plaintiff's counsel, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the fixed amount of $50,000.

The defendant sought costs thrown away after preparing a motion to settle the terms of a decertification order, which included a request to make the plaintiff's counsel personally liable for an unpaid costs award of $37,800.

Before the motion was heard, the plaintiff's counsel paid the outstanding costs in full, obviating the need for the motion.

The court declined to award costs thrown away to the defendant, emphasizing the judicial policy of encouraging parties to resolve disputes and reduce litigation expenses.

A case conference was held to discuss next steps in a class action that was previously certified and then decertified.

The plaintiff sought to schedule a recertification motion with a new representative plaintiff, while the defendant sought to settle the terms of the decertification order, specifically seeking to make plaintiff's counsel personally liable for a previous $37,800 costs award.

The court deferred scheduling the recertification motion until the costs issue and the terms of the decertification order are resolved at an upcoming motion.

The plaintiff in an unpaid wages class action moved to be re-appointed as the representative plaintiff, having been removed months earlier for prioritizing his personal interests over those of the class.

Class counsel had been unable to find a replacement representative plaintiff.

The court found the plaintiff remained unsuitable due to his volatile, self-focused behavior and inability to provide independent judgment.

Consequently, the motion for re-appointment was dismissed, and the defendant's cross-motion to decertify the class action was granted.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a libel action commenced by the plaintiffs, a law firm and its senior partner.

The action arose after the individual defendant protested outside the plaintiffs' offices with placards alleging the law firm was withholding funds owed to the corporate defendant for occupational therapy services.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather a private financial dispute between two professional firms.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, finding compelling facts to depart from the statutory presumption of no costs for an unsuccessful moving party.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action for settlement purposes and to approve a settlement with the defendant software developer.

The action concerned a security defect in preloaded software on laptop computers that allegedly intercepted web traffic.

The court found that the criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court also approved the settlement of $151,547 CAD and cooperation terms, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims as an abuse of process, arguing they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in a New York judgment against one of the defendants.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the undefended counterclaim of the defendant subject to the New York judgment, as it was res judicata.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the counterclaim by the affiliated corporate defendant, finding that granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings at trial, as the issues in the counterclaim were intertwined with the main action against that defendant.

In a proposed class action, the plaintiff moved under Rule 49 to enforce an alleged settlement with one of the defendants, Superfish Inc., prior to certification.

Counsel for Superfish requested an adjournment to obtain instructions.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that a Rule 49 motion to enforce a settlement in a proposed class action cannot proceed pre-certification.

The motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to properly constitute the motion by bringing it alongside a motion for certification.

The moving party, Zayo Inc., previously had its motion dismissed.

The motion sought an order for the Monitor to pay Zayo $1,228,799.81 from the proceeds of the sale of the applicants' assets.

In this costs endorsement, Zayo argued that costs are not the norm in CCAA proceedings.

The court disagreed, finding this to be an exceptional case where the normal rule of costs should apply, as the real opponents (the secured lenders and the purchaser) were not insolvent.

The court awarded costs against Zayo, fixing them at $30,000 each for Primus and BMO, and $20,000 each for Birch and the Monitor.

The applicants, a group of integrated telecommunications companies operating in Canada and the US, sought an initial order under the CCAA.

Facing declining revenues and defaults on secured credit agreements, the companies required protection to implement a pre-filing sales process.

The court granted the initial order, finding the applicants were insolvent debtor companies.

The court also approved an Administration Charge of $1 million, a Directors' and Officers' Charge of $3.1 million, and authorized FTI Consulting Canada Inc. to act as the foreign representative to seek recognition of the proceedings in the United States under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.