Andrea Grass

The Québec Class Counsel sought an interlocutory injunction against Actis Law Group and its principal, Andrea Grass, to prevent them from advertising legal services and soliciting retainers from Québec Class-Action Plaintiffs (QCAP) in the ongoing tobacco CCAA insolvency proceedings.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the orderly resolution of the CCAA proceedings and potential confusion for vulnerable claimants, and that the balance of convenience favored the injunction.

The court also waived the requirement for an undertaking from the moving party.

This endorsement addresses an interlocutory injunction motion within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) insolvency proceedings of three major tobacco companies.

Representative counsel for the Pan-Canadian Claimants sought to enjoin Actis Law Group and its principal from advertising legal services and soliciting retainers from claimants.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) was met.

The court emphasized that Actis's actions risked confusing vulnerable claimants and undermining the equitable and orderly resolution of the CCAA proceedings, particularly given that the court-appointed class counsel and a specially crafted compensation plan already provide services to claimants at no cost.

This is a motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning automobile airbags that had been recalled.

The action, which had not been certified, sought compensation for pure economic loss.

Due to developments in case law, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification on pure economic loss for defective products, the litigation risk increased, and the prospects for certification and substantial economic recovery diminished.

Class Counsel sought leave to discontinue the action with prejudice and without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the test for discontinuance was satisfied, and putative class members were not prejudiced, as limitation periods remained suspended.

A carriage motion was brought to determine which of two competing proposed class actions regarding allegedly misleading 'recyclable' claims on Keurig coffee pods should proceed in Ontario.

The court evaluated the competing proposals under section 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, focusing on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court awarded carriage to the Buis action, finding its narrower class definition and reliance on a damages model already utilized in a U.S. settlement offered a more efficient path to resolution.

The competing Gordon action was stayed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a class action settlement and class counsel fees regarding allegedly defective dive computers manufactured by the defendant.

The settlement included an inspection and repair program, a reimbursement fund, and educational certificates.

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

The court also approved class counsel fees of US $400,000 and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought a case conference to establish a timetable for a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding against Keurig Canada Inc. regarding alleged misrepresentations about the recyclability of K-Cups.

The court noted the existence of three other overlapping proposed class proceedings in British Columbia, Federal Court, and Toronto.

The court declined to fix a date for the certification motion at this stage, instead ordering that a carriage motion be brought within 60 days to determine which action should proceed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes regarding allegedly defective dive computers manufactured by the defendant.

The court found that the statutory criteria for certification were met and that a class proceeding was the most appropriate way to provide remedies to purchasers.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, approved the proposed plan of advertising and notification, and scheduled a date for the settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiff sought approval of a national class action settlement regarding defective Caterpillar engines, along with approval of class counsel fees and representative plaintiff honoraria.

The settlement established an $8,000,000 escrow fund to compensate class members across Canada, excluding Quebec, where a parallel proceeding was settled.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved the $2.4 million counsel fee as proportionate to the risk and effort, and granted a $10,000 honorarium to both the Ontario and Quebec representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff sought approval of a class action settlement regarding allegations that the defendants' premium pet food products did not always contain the advertised premium ingredients.

The settlement provided for nominal individual compensation to registered class members, a cy-près payment of $375,968 to veterinary schools and an animal charity, and injunctive relief ensuring product specifications match packaging claims.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the benefits outweighed the risks of continued litigation.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $295,000 and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, both to be paid separately by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of settlement.

The proposed settlement involved modest payments to registered class members without a claims process, and cy pres payments to universities researching pet health.

The court found the streamlined process fair and reasonable, certified a national class, and approved the notice process and schedule for the settlement approval hearing.

This omnibus motion concerned the certification of a class action for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement agreement, notice of certification and opt-out rights, class counsel fees, and honorariums for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the absence of opt-outs or objections.

The requested class counsel fees and plaintiff honorariums were also approved.