Header graphic for print
Canadian Class Actions Monitor

Tag Archives: Ontario Superior Court of Justice

A job to be a hockey player: Ontario Superior Court of Justice certifies a class action to decide whether OHL players are employees entitled to get a minimal wage pay

Posted in Class Actions

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently certified a case that, as reported by some media, could change Canadian hockey forever.[1] Two representative plaintiffs, Sam Berg, a former Niagara IceDogs forward, and Danial Pachis, a former member of the Oshawa Generals, will be allowed to pursue a lawsuit against the OHL and its clubs[2] alleging that junior hockey players do not get what they are entitled to under the law, namely, minimum wages for their services on the basis that they are employees. The case demonstrates the difficulties of pursuing a cross-border class action where some members of the class reside in Canada and others reside in the United States.… Continue Reading

PHIPA Does Not Preclude the Recourse to Common Law for Health Privacy Violations

Posted in Class Actions

The following post by Antoine Brylowski, Mathieu Courchesne and Sean Griffin on our Canadian Technology blog (snIP/ITs): PHIPA Does Not Preclude the Recourse to Common Law for Health Privacy Violations.

Facts

‘‘With the click of a mouse, personal health records can be accessed by those who have a legitimate interest in properly treating a patient – or they can be accessed for an improper purpose.’’

These were the opening words of the Ontario Superior Court in the case of Hopkins v. Kay where Representative Plaintiffs sought to bring a class action suit against a hospital and other defendants, alleging that approximately 280 patient records of the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (the ‘‘Hospital’’) were intentionally and wrongfully accessed by the Hospital’s staff and others.… Continue Reading

Ontario Court Rejects Franchise Class Action Settlement Agreement for Overbroad Release

Posted in Class Actions

The following post on the Consumer and Retail Advisor blog written by  Chantal Tremblay, Jill Yates and Adam Ship may be of interest to readers of this blog:

Ontario Court Rejects Franchise Class Action Settlement Agreement for Overbroad Release

In 2038724 Ontario Ltd. v. Quizno’s Canada Restaurant Corporation, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently dismissed a motion to approve a Settlement Agreement between the Franchisor and the Representative Franchisees on the basis of an overbroad unfair release.

Background

The allegations forming the basis of the class action included anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the Franchisor. The Franchisor was alleged to be maintaining the prices of goods offered by its Designated Suppliers to Franchisees at commercially unreasonable levels.… Continue Reading

Proactive Monitoring: Lack of Employee Oversight Leads to the Certification of the first Privacy Class Action based on the novel tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”

Posted in Certification, Class Actions

On June 6, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court certified the first privacy class action based on the novel tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”, recognised in 2012 by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige.[1]

In Evans v. Bank of Nova Scotia[2], the plaintiffs sued the Bank and its employee for damages through this new tort. This decision is of interest for any employer who oversee employees that have access to customers’ confidential and financial data.

The Facts

Richard Wilson, Mortgage Administration Officer at the Bank, admitted he had access to highly confidential customer information that his girlfriend disseminated to third parties for fraudulent and improper purposes.… Continue Reading

Contingency Fees – An Abundance of Costs

Posted in Multijurisdictional, Procedure

Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation, 2013 ONSC 7686

In this class action decision Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice set out new, generous guidelines for assessing contingency fee requests by class counsel in the context of a settlement of an action. Courts have adopted different methods for assessing whether contingency agreements should approved including the “lodestar” approach, the “multiplier” approach, combinations thereof and attempts to fix a notional “cap” on the percentage of a settlement amount. As a consequence, costs awards have been determined on an ad hoc basis leading to inconsistent results.

Justice Belobaba conducts a quick review of this sometimes tortured process and concludes that a single, simple, straightforward approach to contingency fee agreements should be adopted. … Continue Reading