Class Actions: Maximum-Security Psychiatric Hospitals
Stolove, et al. v. Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, et al., 2025 ONCA 376 (41947)
The Applicants began an action against the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health, formerly the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene, (“Hospital”), and certain members of its Quality Committee, under the Class Proceedings Act. The Hospital, a maximum-security psychiatric hospital, was a public hospital under the Public Hospitals Act. It admitted involuntary patients under the Mental Health Act and “forensic” involuntary patients under Part XX.1 (Mental Disorders) of the Criminal Code. On December 15, 2008, Ontario divested itself of the Hospital. The plaintiffs sought to certify the action as a class action with two classes, one for patients and one for their families. They alleged the care provided for involuntary patients was systematically negligent because the Hospital routinely and excessively subjected its patients to solitary confinement or seclusion and the use of restraints in an abusive manner. They also alleged breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, and breaches of ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter. As against Ontario and Waypoint, they alleged vicarious liability and breach of non-delegable duties for the acts and omissions of the officers, directors and employees of Ontario and Waypoint. The Respondents denied any unlawful restraints, including seclusion that amounted to solitary confinement, and disputed all certification criteria. The motion judge dismissed the certification motion and, having applied a discount under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, awarded all inclusive partial indemnity costs of $1,170M for Waypoint and $735K for Ontario. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal as to certification, granted leave to appeal costs, and dismissed the appeal as to costs. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.”
Employment Law: Termination
Graceffa v. Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc., et al., 2025 QCCA 504 (41865)
There is a sealing order in this case, in the context of employment termination, annual bonus, alleged defamation. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Equalization; Proprietary Interests; Support
Iredale v. Dougall, 2025 ONCA 266 (41850)
The parties separated after a marriage of approximately 24 years. Over the last roughly eight years of the marriage, they had built up an organic crop farm on the property upon which the matrimonial home was located. The parties initially began by farming four acres in their first year and leased land from the wife’s family. Sometime later, her parents gifted her shares of the farming corporation, which owned the farm property and what became the matrimonial home. In the year of separation, the amount of land farmed had expanded to 187 acres. The trial judge ordered the wife pay to the husband an equalization payment. The husband’s claim for a proprietary beneficial interest in the home farm was dismissed. The wife was ordered to pay spousal support to husband. The husband appealed that decision and the Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Unjust Enrichment; Support
Sherlock v. Mullin, 2025 ONCA 510 (41990)
The parties began living together in 2000 and were married in 2012 after living together for nearly twelve and a half years. They were separated in 2013 after almost 10 months of marriage. At trial, the wife sought $3M in monetary damages based on unjust enrichment arising out of a joint family venture, a lump sum payment of spousal support consisting of both retroactive and prospective payments, and prejudgment interest. The trial judge awarded her $3M in monetary damages and $365,624 as lump sum spousal support and costs. The husband appealed and the Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Securities: (Alleged) Unregistered Trading
Lamarche v. British Columbia Securities Commission, et al., 2025 BCCA 146 (41905)
In 2022, the Respondent B.C. Securities Commission commenced an administrative proceeding against Applicant Jean Lamarche. The Commission issued a notice of hearing which alleged Mr. Lamarche had engaged in unregistered trading and advising contrary to the Securities Act. Mr. Lamarche commenced a claim in the B.C.S.C. alleging a provision of the Act was unconstitutional, and seeking punitive damages, Charter damages, and damages under the Privacy Act. The Commission applied for an order to stay the constitutional claims pending completion of its administrative proceeding under the Act, and to strike Mr. Lamarche’s claims for punitive damages and Privacy Act damages without leave to amend. The chambers judge allowed the Commission’s application. The constitutional claims were stayed and the claims for punitive damages and Privacy Act damages were struck without leave to amend. The B.C.C.A. allowed Mr. Lamarche’s appeal in part. The court set aside the order striking the punitive damages and Privacy Act damages claims, but held those claims should be stayed until the administrative proceeding was complete. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent British Columbia Securities Commission.”