Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Hardy v. Canada (Attorney General)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court certified the action because the proposed classes, representative plaintiffs, common issues and class counsel met the certification conditions under Rule 334.16, the matter was appropriate for class treatment, and the parties consented to the form of the draft order.

Court disposition

Action certified as a class proceeding; classes certified; representative plaintiffs and class counsel appointed; common issues established; parties ordered to propose opt-out mechanism; no costs on the motion.

Orders

  • This action is certified as a class proceeding against the Attorney General of Canada.
  • Primary Class and Family Class are certified as defined in the order.
  • Representative Plaintiff of the Primary Class appointed: Ann Cecile Hardy.
  • Representative Plaintiff of the Family Class appointed: Cecil Hardy.
  • Common issues for the classes are certified as set out in the order.
  • Koskie Minsky LLP, Cooper Regel (Masuch Law LLP), Klein Lawyers LLP and Merchant Law Group LLP are appointed as Class Counsel.
  • Parties shall specify opt-out time and manner in a joint litigation plan and move to amend the order to reflect opt-out provisions pursuant to Rules 334.17(1)(f) and 334.19.
  • No costs are payable on this motion for certification in accordance with Rule 334.39 of the Federal Courts Rules.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ann Cecile Hardy

Plaintiff

The Attorney General of Canada

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Class Proceeding / Certification

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiff alleged Canada breached duties owed to persons admitted to Indian Hospitals and sought certification of two classes, appointment of representative plaintiffs and class counsel, and declaration of common issues and relief for damages and declarations.
Respondent
The Defendant consented to the form of the draft order and did not oppose certification on the proposed terms.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 334.16

    Certification requires that the proposed proceeding meet the conditions in Rule 334.16 including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff adequacy.

  2. 02

    Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rules 334.12(2), 334.17, 334.19

    The Court may certify a class, define classes and common issues, and appoint representative plaintiffs and class counsel on motion under the Rules.

  3. 03

    Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 334.39

    No costs are payable on certification motions where the Rules so provide.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court certified the action because the proposed classes, representative plaintiffs, common issues and class counsel met the certification conditions under Rule 334.16, the matter was appropriate for class treatment, and the parties consented to the form of the draft order.

Obiter and limits

  • Parties must submit a joint litigation plan specifying the time and manner for Class Members to opt out and move to amend the order to reflect opt-out provisions.
  • Class counsel were appointed as Koskie Minsky LLP, Cooper Regel (a member of Masuch Law LLP), Klein Lawyers LLP and Merchant Law Group LLP.
  • Relief sought by the class members was limited to damages and declarations.
  • No costs were awarded on the certification motion pursuant to the Rules.

Court disposition

Action certified as a class proceeding; classes certified; representative plaintiffs and class counsel appointed; common issues established; parties ordered to propose opt-out mechanism; no costs on the motion.

  • This action is certified as a class proceeding against the Attorney General of Canada.
  • Primary Class and Family Class are certified as defined in the order.
  • Representative Plaintiff of the Primary Class appointed: Ann Cecile Hardy.
  • Representative Plaintiff of the Family Class appointed: Cecil Hardy.
  • Common issues for the classes are certified as set out in the order.
  • Koskie Minsky LLP, Cooper Regel (Masuch Law LLP), Klein Lawyers LLP and Merchant Law Group LLP are appointed as Class Counsel.
  • Parties shall specify opt-out time and manner in a joint litigation plan and move to amend the order to reflect opt-out provisions pursuant to Rules 334.17(1)(f) and 334.19.
  • No costs are payable on this motion for certification in accordance with Rule 334.39 of the Federal Courts Rules.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 17 January 2020

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 17 January 2020

2020 FC 73

Hardy v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-01-17 Neutral citation 2020 FC 73 File numbers T-143-18 Decision Content Date: 20200117 Docket: T-143-18 Citation: 2020 FC 73 Ottawa, Ontario, January 17, 2020 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Favel

PROPOSED CLASS PROCEEDING BETWEEN:

ANN CECILE HARDY Plaintiff and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Defendant

ORDER UPON MOTION in writing pursuant to Rules 369 and 334.12(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, seeking an order: a) Certifying this action as a class proceeding; b) Certifying the classes; c) Appointing the representative plaintiff; d) Setting out the common issues of fact or law for the classes; and e) Appointing class counsel; AND UPON considering that this actions concerns allegations by the Plaintiff that Canada breached duties owed to persons admitted to Indian Hospitals; AND UPON considering that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have consented to the form of a draft order; AND UPON considering the certification conditions that must be met and the matters to be considered as set out in Rule 334.16; AND UPON being satisfied that this is an appropriate proceeding for certification as a class proceeding on the proposed terms; THIS COURT ORDERS that: This action is hereby certified as a class proceeding against the Attorney General of Canada. The Classes are defined as follows: Primary Class means all persons who were admitted to an Indian Hospital during the Class Period; and Family Class means all persons who are a spouse or former spouse, child, grandchild or sibling of a member of the Primary Class and the spouse of a child, grandchild or sibling of a member of the Primary Class. (“Class Members”) The Class Period means the period from and including the date on

which Canada assumed management and control of any particular Indian Hospital, which shall be no earlier than January 1, 1936 and ending on the earlier of the following dates: a) The date of closure of any particular Indian Hospital; or b) The date on which management and control of any particular Indian Hospital was effectively transferred from Canada; or c) December 31, 1981. a) Did Canada owe duties to Class Members in respect of Indian Hospitals? b) If the answer to a) is yes, did Canada breach any of those issues? The representative Plaintiff of the Primary Class hereby appointed is Ann Cecile Hardy. The representative Plaintiff of the Family Class hereby appointed is Cecil Hardy. This proceeding is certified on the basis of the following common issues: Koskie Minsky LLP, Cooper Regel, a member of Masuch Law LLP, Klein Lawyers LLP and Merchant Law Group LLP are appointed as Class Counsel. The relief sought by the Class Members is damages and declarations. The Parties shall, as part of a joint litigation plan, specify the time and manner for Class Members to opt out of the class proceeding, and shall bring a motion in writing seeking to amend this Order to reflect the opt out provisions, all pursuant to Rules 334.17(1)(f) and 334.19 of the Federal Courts Rules. No costs are payable on this motion for certification in accordance with Rule 334.39 of the Federal Courts Rules. blank "Paul Favel" blank Judge

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 369

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 334.12(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 334.16

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 334.17(1)(f)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 334.19

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 334.39

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.