Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Federal Court approved a data-breach class settlement, honoraria, and class counsel fees, and allowed objectors a further opt-out opportunity.
The Court of Appeal held the chambers judge did not err in exercising his discretion to convert the action to a class proceeding or in granting leave to amend the NOCC; however it was premature and an error in principle to fix the commencement date for tolling under s.38.1 of the CPA at the conversion stage without a fuller record, so the order selecting October 3, 2022 was vacated and the respondent was granted leave to file a second further amended notice of civil claim.
Source excerpt
The orders for subpoenas and letters of request derive their procedural authority from Part 7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules (Rule 7-8 and Rule 7-1) rather than constituting independent authority under the Subpoena (Interprovincial) Act or the court's inherent jurisdiction; accordingly the orders are limited appeal orders requiring leave, and leave to appeal is denied because the proposed appeal lacks sufficient significance and merit and would unduly hinder the progress of the underlying proceeding.
Source excerpt
The pleadings disclose a viable cause of action under s.1 of the Privacy Act and, on the evidentiary record (TransLink's investigation identifying accessed folders and individualized notifications plus expert reports), there is some basis in fact for an identifiable class and for common issues concerning access, breach of statutory duties under FIPPA, and wilful violation under the Privacy Act; a class proceeding is the preferable and efficient mechanism to resolve these common issues, while claims for vicarious liability and restitutionary disgorgement lack evidentiary foundation and are not…
Source excerpt
The application for leave was dismissed because the petitioner failed to file/adduce admissible affidavits in this petition (cannot rely wholesale on affidavits filed in a separate proceeding), failed to provide sufficient credible evidence or properly pleaded material facts to satisfy the s.140.8 leave threshold, and most claims based on documents released before November 6, 2021 are statute-barred under s.140.94; consequently leave was denied and nunc pro tunc relief rejected.
Source excerpt
The court held it was not plain and obvious that s.52(7) bars a private s.36 drip‑pricing claim given arguable statutory interpretations and policy considerations, so the drip‑pricing claim survives the strike motion; conversely the s.54 double‑ticketing claim was struck because the pleaded sequential price expressions do not meet s.54's contemporaneous temporal requirement and would render s.52(1.3) redundant.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was denied because the appellants failed to raise an arguable issue; the contested scheduling decision falls within the broad discretion of the case management judge and did not demonstrate a reviewable error warranting further appeal.
Source excerpt
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld certification of causation and punitive damages in a COVID-19 class action against a long-term care home and denied leave on costs.
The appeal is allowed in part: the chambers judge correctly found the plaintiffs provided a realistic, fact‑grounded methodology and adequately pleaded negligence and both private and public nuisance claims, and correctly rejected a fatal conflict between Inner and Outer Prairie class members on the common issues; however, certification of the subclass of property owners subject to registered indemnity covenants (the Indemnity Class) and the appointment of their representative plaintiffs are set aside because the judge failed to satisfy s.4(1)(e) by addressing the unresolved conflicts, notice…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant was a member of the class and the Family Class under the Saskatchewan court approval of the IRSSA; his pleaded claim falls within the express, comprehensive release in that approval order and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action; paragraph 21 does not exempt his claim and minors are bound by the order; the Federal Court did not err in striking the statement of claim without leave to amend.
Source excerpt
Explore more
