5 total
The court approved discontinuing an abandoned class action but mandated notice to protect vulnerable members.
The representative plaintiffs, I.P. and M.P., brought a motion for court approval to discontinue a proposed class action against the Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada and other related entities, without costs and without notice to putative class members.
The proposed class action, initiated in 2015, alleged sexual abuse of children at the Holy Cross Mission.
The plaintiffs and 27 other putative class members had individually settled their claims outside of the class proceeding framework.
The court granted leave to discontinue the action but required the Merchant Law Group, as putative class counsel, to provide notice of the discontinuance to all putative class members, including those who had settled, through website posting, newspaper publication, and direct delivery of the reasons for decision.
The court emphasized the need for transparency and protection of vulnerable class members, noting that the individual settlements and counsel fees were not disclosed for court approval.
The Court of Appeal set aside a partial summary judgment as improper and procedurally unfair.
The respondent bank sought indemnity under an insurance policy for losses arising from a Ponzi scheme operated by a customer.
The bank obtained partial summary judgment on the interpretation of the "direct financial loss" element of the fidelity coverage section.
The appellants (insurers) appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment on a constituent element of a claim rather than on the claim itself, failed to interpret the policy as a whole, adopted a theory of liability not advanced by the parties, and misconstrued the relief sought by the appellants.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and directed the action to proceed to trial.
Human rights application by freelance writer against newspaper and hospital dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant, a freelance writer and volunteer community editorial board member for the Guelph Mercury, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the newspaper, the Ontario Press Council, and the Guelph General Hospital.
The applicant claimed the hospital discriminated against him based on race when responding to his inquiries for an article, and that the newspaper engaged in reprisal by removing him from the editorial board after he complained.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against all respondents, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own beliefs connecting the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.
Leave to appeal denied as the moving party failed to meet the stringent test under Rule 62.02(4).
The moving party, a third-party subcontractor, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.
The underlying action involved a claim for damages resulting from severed power cables during demolition work.
The moving party argued that a full and final release barred the third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decision and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusion that a trial was required to determine the parties' intentions regarding the release.
Venue transfer granted; related actions to proceed together in Ottawa.
The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking consolidation of two related actions—one commenced in Brampton and another in Ottawa—and requested that the consolidated proceeding be tried in Brampton.
The defendant agreed that the claims arose from the same occurrence but proposed that the actions be tried together rather than formally consolidated and argued that Ottawa was the more appropriate venue.
Applying the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that both locations had connections to the dispute but concluded that Ottawa was the preferred venue.
Considerations included judicial resource constraints in Brampton and the availability of mandatory mediation in Ottawa.
The court ordered that the proceedings be transferred to Ottawa and that the two actions be tried together or consecutively, with costs of the motion reserved to the trial judge.
