1. This class action claims damages arising from the installation of Retrofoam in certain residential properties in Ontario. For a list of the parties to this action, please click here.
2. The action is brought on behalf of the following class of people:
all persons who owned or had an interest in real property when RetroFoam was injected or installed and applied for a grant pursuant to the EcoEnergy Retrofit Initiative-Homes Program excluding the defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, officers, directors, senior employees and their heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns.
3. Under the EcoEnergy Program, a federal government program instituted by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Minister licensed inspectors to perform energy audits on properties. If insulation was required, installed and certain conditions were met, a grant was given to the homeowner by the Minister. The claim alleges that some of these licensed inspectors recommended the use of RetroFoam to property owners.
4. On February 3, 2009, Health Canada announced that RetroFoam contains urea formaldehyde (“UFFI”) a substance which is banned in Canada under the Hazardous Products Act.
5. The claim alleges that a property containing RetroFoam, and thereby UFFI, is stigmatized, that the property value has been substantially reduced and that the property may not be capable of being mortgaged and/or sold.
6. This class action seeks damages, including the cost of removal and replacement of the RetroFoam and the reduction in value of the property.
7. On March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs delivered their motion record in support of certification. Click here to review the notice of motion for certification and click here to review the affidavit of one of the proposed representative plaintiffs.
8. The Attorney General of Canada delivered a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim.
9. On June 7, 2010, Justice Patterson heard a motion to determine when the motion to strike will be heard. On June 14, 2010, Justice Patterson delivered reasons which stated that the motion to strike will be heard at the same time as the certification motion.
10. On August 18, 2010, Justice Patterson heard a motion brought by one defendant, Foam Comfort Inc., for leave to be represented by a non-lawyer in this lawsuit. On September 1, 2010, Justice Patterson delivered reasons which ordered Foam Comfort Inc.’s insurer, Federated Insurance Company of Canada, to defend Foam Comfort Inc. in this lawsuit.
11. On September 8, 2010, Federated Insurance Company of Canada delivered a notice of appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
12. On March 4, 2011, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Federated Insurance Company of Canada. The reasons of the Court of Appeal can be reviewed here.
13. On April 1, 2011, Justice Patterson certified this action as a class proceeding against the defendants except the Attorney General of Canada. The certification order of Justice Patterson and the notice of certification may be reviewed here.
14. On June 16, 2011, the Attorney General of Canada withdrew its motion to strike the claim against it and consented to the certification of this action as a class proceeding against it. The order dismissing the motion to strike, the certification order and the amended notice of certification may be reviewed here.
15. On June 24, 2011, the Attorney General of Canada brought another motion to strike twenty-three paragraphs (or portions thereof) from the statement of claim together with a motion precluding the plaintiffs from amending the statement of claim without permission from the court. On August 31, 2011, the motion was argued before Justice Patterson. On September 15, 2011, Justice Patterson delivered reasons which ordered two paragraphs to be struck from the statement of claim, and dismissed the balance of the motions brought by the Attorney General of Canada.
16. On November 1, 2011, the Attorney General of Canada brought another motion to strike fourteen paragraphs from the statement of claim. On December 1, 2011, the motion was argued before Justice Patterson. On December 22, 2011, Justice Patterson delivered reasons which dismissed the Attorney General of Canada’s motion in its entirety.
17. The next stage of this lawsuit is discovery where all parties to this lawsuit are required to exchange all relevant documents with one another. In August, 2011, Class Counsel delivered their documents to the defendants. Most of the defendants have delivered their documents to the Class Counsel. At this time, Class Counsel is reviewing and analyzing thousands of documents received from the defendants and is awaiting many thousands more from the Attorney General of Canada.
18. Examinations for discovery are scheduled to commence in June, 2012 through October, 2012 in Windsor and Toronto.
19. On-line registration is available at this site. Please register with us if RetroFoam was installed in your property. Please continue to visit this website to keep your registration information up-to-date.
20. If you would like to speak to someone about this lawsuit, please call Sutts, Strosberg LLP at 1.866.345.3151.
21. If you would like to know more about how a class action works, click here.