Register Your Claim Immediately
As part of a collaborative effort between the six law firms, a comprehensive statement of claim has been served and filed.
The statement of claim does not include the City of Toronto as a defendant. We did not add the City of Toronto as a defendant to the action because we believed that there were no grounds in law to add them as a party at this time. Prior to the issuing of the comprehensive claim, the collaborating law firms had issued individual actions naming the City of Toronto. On February 8, 2010, at our request, the Court discontinued those actions. The class members wishing to sue the City of Toronto themselves, must do so within two years of February 8, 2010, that is, February 8, 2012, or their action cannot proceed. Our firm does not intend at this time to sue the City of Toronto.
We have decided that there is sufficient evidence against the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) and we have obtained a court order to add TSSA as a defendant.
On November 9, 2009, we obtained a court order from Mr. Justice Cullity, who is case-managing the class action, whereby he directed that the certification motion proceed ahead of any other motions.
In August of 2010 the Fire Marshall issued a report stating that the cause of the explosions was a propane leak which in turn was caused by a failure in the hose that was transferring propane from one truck to another, or in the pump bypass components. In light of this, we have decided to add the manufacturers of these products and other related parties to the claim.
The certification motion had been scheduled to be argued during the week of October 25, 2011. In an effort to promote settlement and ensure the registration of as many people as possible on our website, subject to court approval, counsel agreed to a certification order which would allow the case to proceed to trial. This agreement was, however, subject to a condition that anyone effected by the explosions who wanted to claim damages must register their claim within six months from the date of the order, failing which they would be barred from making a claim. In this way, at the end of the six month period the defendants would know exactly how much was being claimed and would be able to make a concrete settlement proposal.
The judge heard this proposal on October 27, 2011 and requested additional submissions which were filed November 18, 2011. On December 16, 2011 the judge declined to approve the order. Her reasons can be read by clicking here. The judge was concerned that the proposal would eliminate persons who did not make a claim within the six months. (We had argued that four years had passed since the explosions and that was enough time enough for people to come forward).
The result is that the conditional agreement will not proceed. Instead the certification motion will be argued on May14-18, 2012. While we are disappointed that the judge did not approve what we believed was a creative proposal to speed up the case, we are confident that certification will be awarded in May 2012 .
Meanwhile, we urge those class members who have not registered to do so immediately. Please email Sonia Pillitteri or call (416) 365-9320 ext. 131 for assistance.