Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can You Sue a Long-Term Care Home for COVID-19 Negligence in Ontario?
- Court / Tribunal
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice
- Citation
- 2026 ONSC 6174 ↗
- Date
- October 30, 2026
- Area of law
- Litigation Law
- Key issue
- Whether, on the City of Windsor's consent, a class action alleging gross negligence in the COVID-19 response at Huron Lodge could be certified under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
- Outcome
- Justice Morgan certified Adamo v. City of Windsor as a class proceeding after the City consented to certification. The endorsement records that the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action in gross negligence and that there is some basis in fact for the classes, the common issues, and a class proceeding. The court did not decide liability, and the pleaded infection and death figures are allegations.
- Why it matters
- Families affected by COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care can watch for certified class proceedings, including a consent certification like this one about Huron Lodge. Certification opens a collective proceeding. It does not decide fault or award compensation.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
Where the defendant consents, the court may certify a long-term care COVID-19 class action without a contested hearing on the certification criteria. In Adamo, the City of Windsor consented, and Morgan J. certified the proceeding concerning Huron Lodge. The plaintiffs pleaded gross negligence, a cause of action the endorsement describes as already recognized in Pugliese v. Chartwell, 2024 ONSC 1135. Certification records that the claim is legally tenable and suitable for a class proceeding. It does not decide whether the home was grossly negligent. The certified common issues ask about duty, standard of care, breach, gross negligence, causation, general damages, Family Law Act damages, disgorgement, aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages, and aggregate assessment under sections 24 and 25 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
Important limits
What this does not mean
Certification is not a finding that Huron Lodge, or the City of Windsor, committed gross negligence or caused any resident's illness or death. The City consented to certification, and liability remains to be decided. The plaintiffs allege that at least 1,966 residents were infected and that at least 244 residents died of COVID-19. Those figures are allegations in the claim, not findings of the court. A COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care home is not itself a determination of liability. The result in any case depends on the facility's conduct measured against the applicable standard of care.
Can families sue a long-term care home for COVID-19 deaths in Ontario?
A claim in gross negligence can proceed as a class action, including where the operator consents to certification. In Adamo v. City of Windsor, 2026 ONSC 6174 (CanLII), Justice E.M. Morgan certified the action on October 30, 2026, in writing, after the Corporation of the City of Windsor consented to certification. The court file is CV-22-00691183-00CP.
The case is about Huron Lodge, a long-term care home owned, licensed, and operated by the City of Windsor. The plaintiffs allege that the City was grossly negligent in its response to COVID-19 at Huron Lodge from January 25, 2020 to May 5, 2023. They allege that outbreaks in that period infected at least 1,966 residents and that at least 244 residents died of COVID-19. Those numbers are the plaintiffs’ allegations. Justice Morgan did not find them as facts.
The plaintiffs pleaded gross negligence, a cause of action the endorsement describes as already recognized in Pugliese v. Chartwell, 2024 ONSC 1135, for COVID-related cases against long-term care homes. Certification means the case goes ahead as a class action. It is not a decision that the City was negligent or that any death or infection was caused by a breach of the standard of care.
What did the court actually decide?
The City consented to certification. This endorsement does not describe a contested fight over the certification criteria. Justice Morgan certified the action and recorded that the requirements in section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, are satisfied. The statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action in gross negligence. There is some basis in fact for the identifiable classes, for the common issues, and for a class proceeding as the preferable procedure. There is also some basis in fact that the proposed representative plaintiffs can fairly and adequately represent the classes, have a workable plan, and have no conflict on the common issues.
The endorsement says there is some basis in fact to allege long-standing deficiencies at Huron Lodge: an outdated, physically neglected, and overcrowded facility, inadequate infection-prevention training and protocols, failures to inspect and oversee compliance, and under-staffing. It also says there is some basis in fact to allege that the City used delayed, reactive, and deficient infection-prevention measures. Those points remain allegations supporting certification. They are not findings that the City was grossly negligent.
Joe Adamo, as litigation administrator for the estate of Vincenzo Adamo and in his personal capacity, is the representative plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiffs is appointed as class counsel.
What is gross negligence, and why does it matter here?
Gross negligence is a higher threshold than ordinary negligence. It describes a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable person, beyond an ordinary mistake.
As a general point about Ontario long-term care and COVID-19 claims, cases of this kind are often pleaded in gross negligence. That is background context for readers. This short consent endorsement does not set out a statutory rule limiting long-term care liability to gross negligence. What the endorsement does say is that the plaintiffs pleaded gross negligence, a cause of action already recognized in Pugliese v. Chartwell, 2024 ONSC 1135, and that the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action in gross negligence.
Whether the allegations meet that standard is for a later stage of the case. The certified common issues include the question of whether any breach amounted to gross negligence. Certification did not answer it.
What common issues were certified?
The court certified ten common issues proposed by the plaintiffs. They are questions for the class, not findings:
- Whether the City owed a duty of care to resident class members and visitor class members in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak at Huron Lodge during the class period.
- If so, what the applicable standard of care was.
- Whether the City breached that duty and, if so, when and how.
- Whether any breach amounted to gross negligence.
- Whether gross negligence caused or contributed to COVID-19 infections, deaths, or losses suffered by resident and visitor class members.
- Whether resident and visitor class members are entitled to general damages.
- Whether Family Law Act class members are entitled to damages under section 61 of the Family Law Act.
- Whether resident and visitor class members are entitled to disgorgement of benefits or profits, if any, resulting from gross negligence.
- Whether gross negligence warrants aggravated, exemplary, and/or punitive damages and, if so, in what amount.
- Whether the court can make an aggregate assessment of some or all of the damages under sections 24 and 25 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
Section 61 claims are derivative claims in this civil class action. They allow family members, on account of a personal relationship to a resident or visitor class member, to seek damages arising from that person’s injury or death, including the loss of care, guidance, and companionship. The endorsement also records that a class proceeding is preferable here because of the number of class members, the cost of expert evidence, and the goals of a just and expeditious determination, judicial economy, and behaviour modification.
Who is included in the class?
The classes follow the definitions certified in the endorsement, and they are limited to people who contracted COVID-19 and to family members with a derivative claim. The class period is January 25, 2020 to May 5, 2023. The endorsement ties the end date to the Public Health Agency of Canada’s statement that the World Health Organization had announced that COVID-19 no longer constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
The resident class is all persons who were residents in, or received care at, Huron Lodge and who contracted COVID-19 during the class period, or the estate of such a person who has died.
The visitor class is all persons who were visitors at Huron Lodge during the class period and who contracted COVID-19 during the class period, or the estate of such a person who has died.
The Family Law Act class is spouses, children, parents, and other relatives who, because of a personal relationship to a resident or visitor class member, may have a derivative claim under section 61 of the Family Law Act.
Exposure alone is not the class definition. The resident and visitor classes are people who contracted COVID-19. If you are unsure whether you fall within those definitions, a lawyer who handles Ontario litigation can review the order and your documents with you.
What does this consent certification mean for families?
Certification on consent means the Huron Lodge claim will proceed as a class action. Justice Morgan did not decide that the City breached a duty, that any breach was gross negligence, or that gross negligence caused infections or deaths. The plaintiffs’ figures of at least 1,966 resident infections and at least 244 resident deaths stay allegations until they are proved.
Families connected to other homes still need advice about their own facts. Our litigation lawyers serving Hamilton and clients elsewhere in Ontario advise on complex civil claims, including claims against institutional defendants.
Questions and records to discuss with a lawyer
- Which long-term care home was involved, and was it Huron Lodge or a different facility with its own outbreak history?
- What records exist about the resident’s health before, during, and after any COVID-19 infection at the home?
- Were complaints made to the home, the Ministry of Long-Term Care, or another body about staffing or infection control?
- What communications with the home describe outbreak protocols or the resident’s condition?
- Are there family members who may have derivative claims under section 61 of the Family Law Act?
If you have questions about a long-term care situation involving COVID-19 or another serious harm, the team at UL Lawyers is available to discuss your circumstances. Reach out through our contact page.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Ordinary negligence means failing to meet a reasonable standard of care. Gross negligence is a more serious departure from that standard, such as conduct that is reckless or markedly inadequate. As a general point about Ontario long-term care and COVID-19 claims, this kind of case is often pleaded in gross negligence. That pleading practice is background context. This short endorsement does not decide any statutory limit on liability. In Adamo, the plaintiffs pleaded gross negligence, a cause of action the court described as already recognized in Pugliese v. Chartwell, 2024 ONSC 1135.
Potentially yes. Under the Family Law Act, s. 61, close family members may have derivative claims for the loss of care, guidance, and companionship caused by a loved one's death or serious injury. In this civil class action, those derivative claims are a certified class. Certification does not decide that any family member is entitled to damages.
No. Certification only means the case can proceed as a class action. In this case the City of Windsor consented to certification. Liability still needs to be proved, and individual class members may need to establish their own damages. Class membership does not guarantee any particular outcome.