Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of landlords’ and property managers’ potential liability to apartment residents following a high-rise fire that caused one death and displaced hundreds of occupants
• Adequacy of class certification and the appropriateness of a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for mass residential loss claims
• Sufficiency and fairness of the proposed notice plan to ensure class members are properly informed of a tentative settlement and the approval hearing
• Reliability of the representative plaintiff’s efforts to locate class members and collect contact information, particularly email addresses, for notice purposes
• Reasonableness of using multiple dissemination channels (email, media distribution, website posting, and toll-free line) to reach a dispersed and potentially transient residential class
• Protection of class members’ procedural rights by setting clear timelines and mechanisms for objections to the proposed settlement approval

Background and facts of the case

This case arises from a tragic residential fire at the Gosford Apartments, a high-rise residential building located at 235 Gosford Boulevard in Toronto. The plaintiffs, Jessica Dawn Crevier and Gavin Krause, are representative plaintiffs acting on behalf of a class composed of residents of that building. They commenced a proposed class proceeding against the building’s owner, 1351895 Ontario Limited operating as Elmpark Manor Apartments, and the property manager, Ontario Corporation 256199 operating as Ronkay Management Inc. The action seeks damages for losses suffered in relation to the fire, which occurred on November 15, 2019. According to the court record in this decision, the fire had severe human and practical consequences: it resulted in the death of one resident and the displacement of hundreds of others from their homes. The underlying claim therefore concerns both fatal injury and wide-scale displacement in a multi-unit residential setting. The Statement of Claim was issued on February 10, 2020, situating the action relatively shortly after the fire. The residents’ losses likely encompass a range of harm—including death, injury, loss of use of premises, and associated disruption of life—although the detailed heads of damage are not described in this particular endorsement. What is clear is that the case centers on the responsibilities of a landlord and property manager of a high-rise apartment building when a catastrophic fire occurs and tenants are forced from their homes.

Procedural history and class certification

The action proceeded under Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act, 1992. On August 16, 2022, the court certified the proceeding as a class action under s. 5(1) of that statute, in a prior decision styled Crevier v. Ronkay Management Inc., 2022 ONSC 4710. That earlier certification ruling is not reproduced here, but this endorsement confirms that all criteria for certification were met and that the case has since moved into the post-certification phase. Following certification, the parties continued toward trial. In the course of those pre-trial steps, they participated in a pre-trial conference on October 24, 2025. At that conference, they were able to reach agreement on the terms of a proposed Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement is dated March 4, 2026, and is characterized in this decision as a “tentative settlement” of the action, because any class settlement is subject to court approval. The current decision, issued by Justice E.M. Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on March 18, 2026, does not itself approve the settlement. Instead, it addresses an intermediate but crucial step: approval of the form and method of dissemination of notice to class members in anticipation of a settlement approval hearing.

Notice of settlement and communication with class members

Because this is a certified class proceeding, any proposed settlement requires judicial oversight and a formal process for notifying class members. The plaintiffs, through class counsel, brought a motion under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, seeking approval of their proposed Notice of Settlement and the plan for disseminating that notice, as well as other related procedural matters. The Settlement Agreement itself sets out the details of the notice plan, including both the content of the notices and the channels through which they will reach the class. The notice plan is multi-layered. First, class counsel will send notice by email to class members for whom they have valid email addresses. The email will provide links to the Notices, to class counsel’s website, and will include information about how to contact class counsel if recipients have questions. Second, the Notice will be distributed to the media using Cision Newswire or a comparable media distribution service, as a way to reach class members who may not be reachable by direct email but who are still interested or affected. Third, class counsel will operate a toll-free telephone line to respond to inquiries from class members. Finally, they will post the Notices on class counsel’s website, providing a stable online reference point for anyone seeking information.

Evidentiary foundation for the notice plan

Justice Morgan considered both the content of the proposed Notices and the adequacy of the dissemination methods. He was satisfied that the Notices provide sufficient information to allow class members to understand the basic terms of the proposed settlement, to assess whether it affects their interests, and to decide whether they wish to object. The Notices also set out the procedure for objections and specify the timeline. Class members are permitted to submit formal objections to the proposed settlement until April 3, 2026, giving them a defined window to review the materials and voice any concerns. In evaluating the dissemination plan, the court placed weight on the evidence from one of the representative plaintiffs. That plaintiff swore evidence describing the efforts undertaken to reach class members and obtain as many email addresses as possible for them, which was relevant to demonstrating that email notice would be reasonably effective for this group. Taking that evidence together with the other channels—media distribution, website posting, and a toll-free number—the court concluded that the plan represents an efficient and appropriate way to give notice to a class of displaced residential tenants, some of whom may have relocated or be difficult to contact directly.

Policy terms and insurance-related issues

This particular decision does not contain any discussion of insurance policy terms, coverage clauses, or other contractual policy provisions. The endorsement is narrowly focused on procedural matters under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, specifically the notice of settlement step. If there are insurance policies—such as property, liability, or business interruption policies—implicated in funding the settlement or indemnifying the defendants, the structure and wording of those policies are not addressed in the text of this decision. Likewise, there is no discussion of policy exclusions, limits, or specific clauses that might allocate or restrict coverage for fire-related losses. Any such issues, while potentially important in the broader litigation or in negotiations, are not part of the reasons provided here.

Outcome and status of the proceedings

In this endorsement, Justice Morgan approves the form of the Notice and the methods proposed for its dissemination. He expressly states that the Notices “provide adequate notice to the class members” because they give enough information about the settlement terms and clearly outline how and when class members may express concerns or objections. The court also affirms that the dissemination methods are an efficient and appropriate way to reach the class, particularly given the efforts of the representative plaintiff to collect contact information from other residents. As a result, the plaintiffs’ proposed Notice and dissemination plan are formally approved. The endorsement then sets the settlement approval hearing to be heard by Justice Morgan on April 7, 2026. At that future hearing, the court will consider whether the tentative settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and will decide whether to approve it. At the present stage, the decision does not determine liability, does not declare which party is ultimately successful on the merits, and does not record any total amount of damages, costs, or other monetary award. The settlement is referred to as “tentative,” and the actual financial terms are not disclosed or quantified in this endorsement. Accordingly, based solely on this decision, the successful party in the overall litigation cannot yet be identified, and the total monetary amount ordered or awarded in favour of any party—including damages, costs, or other compensation—cannot be determined from the information available.