Alex Cameron

The court reconsidered a previous costs award of $112,500 made against the plaintiffs following the dismissal of their refusals and interlocutory injunction motions in a proposed class action regarding a data breach.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs claim reflected over-lawyering and sought costs in the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' submissions, finding their motions were unnecessary, overreaching, and deplorably prosecuted.

The court confirmed the original partial indemnity costs award of $112,500 and awarded an additional $12,500 for the costs submissions, for a total of $125,000 payable to the defendants.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $5,000,000 settlement in a class proceeding against a Children's Aid Society regarding a privacy breach where confidential client information was leaked online.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee of approximately $1.6 million plus disbursements, applying the Smith Estate factors, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff to be paid from counsel's fees.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought unsuccessful motions for an injunction and for refusals.

The Capital One defendants sought costs of $135,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued they should be awarded costs despite losing, claiming they achieved their objective.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding their motions were ill-advised and meritless.

Costs were awarded to the Capital One defendants in the amount of $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The plaintiff moved to certify a class action against a children's aid society and other defendants following a privacy breach where a confidential document containing personal information of 284 individuals was accessed and posted online.

The defendants consented to or did not oppose certification.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, including the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and that all criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied.

The motion for certification was granted.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision allowing the respondents' action for copyright infringement to proceed following a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The appellants argued the Master erred in law by only considering prejudice that accrued during the period of delay for which the respondents were at fault, and in finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct test, properly accepted ongoing settlement discussions as a reasonable explanation for much of the delay, and correctly limited the prejudice analysis to the period of blameworthy delay.

Following a motion to strike where the defendant achieved partial success, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for $5,000 or no costs due to mixed success.

The court found that success was not divided, as the plaintiff's position had morphed and required further particulars.

The court awarded the defendant $8,000 in costs.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out pleadings of conspiracy in the amended Statement of Claim.

The defendants sought an adjournment pending the outcome of leave applications to the Court of Appeal in related Divisional Court decisions, which was denied due to prior agreements between counsel.

Applying the binding Divisional Court decision in Jevco, the court held that the doctrine of merger could not be raised at the pleadings stage to strike a conspiracy claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff by counterclaim sought a 30‑day extension to file costs submissions following an earlier endorsement relating to a motion.

Counsel for certain responding parties took no position, while another responding party consented to the request.

The court granted the requested extension and set deadlines for both the delivery of the applicant’s costs submissions and any responding reply submissions.

The court also directed the parties to advise if the costs issue was resolved between them.