Andrew Stein

A former solicitor moved for a charging order under s. 34 of the Solicitors Act over a $70,000 cost award made in favour of his former client, AssessNet Inc. The client argued the solicitor was not "instrumental" in recovering the funds due to alleged negligence and that the retainer agreement precluded payment.

The court found the solicitor's efforts were sufficiently instrumental, noting that allegations of negligence are not appropriate for a charging order application.

The court granted the charging order, directing the funds to be held in trust pending a final assessment of the solicitor's fees.

This is a privacy law class action concerning a data breach at LifeLabs.

The plaintiffs moved for court approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the low likelihood of success at trial given recent legal developments regarding data breach claims and lack of proven damages.

Class counsel's requested fee of 25% of the settlement funds was also approved.

However, the court denied the representative plaintiffs' request for a $2,500 honorarium each, finding their contribution, while valuable, was not exceptional enough to warrant such an award.

This is a motion for certification for settlement purposes in a proposed privacy law class action concerning a data breach affecting 8.6 million customers of LifeLabs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs sought court approval for certifying the action for settlement, approving the settlement notices (Short and Long Form), and a plan for their dissemination.

The court granted the motion, finding that all criteria for certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in the settlement context.

The settlement involves a guaranteed fund of $4.9 million and a contingent fund of $4.9 million, with claimants receiving a minimum of $50.

Three competing groups of law firms sought carriage of a proposed class action against LifeLabs following a massive data breach affecting 15 million patients.

The court evaluated the competing proposals based on factors including the experience of counsel, overall approach, and proposed fee arrangements.

Carriage was awarded to the McPhadden Group (the Carter action) because their proposal for a single national class action was preferred over parallel actions, and their proposed contingency fee arrangement was significantly more cost-effective for the class.

The applicant, Cassie Hodge, brought a motion for court approval of a class action settlement, class counsel's legal fees, and an honorarium for herself.

The class action alleged that the respondents, Gary Neinstein and Neinstein & Associates LLP, breached the Solicitors Act and fiduciary duties by charging additional costs and excessive disbursements in motor vehicle personal injury claims.

After extensive litigation and mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the litigation risks.

Class counsel's fee request of $1.0 million plus HST was approved, and an honorarium of $10,000 for the representative applicant was approved, reduced from the requested $20,000, acknowledging her extraordinary contribution.

The Plaintiff, Esau Max Wynter Jr., sought costs following a successful 8-day trial where he was awarded $53,231.00 plus prejudgment interest for excessive force used by the Defendants during a search warrant execution.

The Plaintiff requested $117,650 plus HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.

The Defendants proposed $25,000 plus disbursements, arguing the case should have been under Simplified Procedure and costs were disproportionate.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found the action was complex and not suitable for Simplified Procedure, noting the Defendants made no settlement offer.

The court fixed costs at $100,000 plus HST and $14,988.85 in disbursements, payable by the Defendants.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the police for damages arising from injuries sustained during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment.

The police utilized a dynamic entry to secure the premises, suspecting firearms were present.

The court found that the officers used excessive force when they struck the sleeping plaintiff in the face and repeatedly hit him while he was pinned to the floor.

The plaintiff was awarded $50,000 in general damages for physical and psychological injuries, and $3,231 in special damages, but claims for punitive and aggravated damages were dismissed.

Appeal of a Divisional Court decision certifying a class proceeding brought by a former client against a personal injury law firm for alleged violations of the Solicitors Act relating to contingency fee agreements.

The applicant alleged the firm violated section 28.1(8) by including costs in its fees without court approval, charged interest contrary to section 33, and breached fiduciary duties and contracts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the firm's appeal and allowed the applicant's cross-appeal in part, upholding certification of the class proceeding with 18 of 19 common issues (deleting one issue regarding whether the firm actually took amounts for costs) and certifying two additional common issues regarding breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages.

The applicant sought to certify a class proceeding against her former lawyers, alleging they breached the Solicitors Act by improperly including recovered costs in their contingency fees without court approval.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and an identifiable class could be defined, the claims lacked commonality.

The court held that determining whether the contingency fee agreements were fair and reasonable required highly individualized assessments of each solicitor-client relationship, making a class proceeding unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.

In a proposed class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the moving party brought an omnibus motion seeking multiple procedural and evidentiary orders affecting the record for a certification motion.

Most of the relief sought was either abandoned or dismissed, with only minor unopposed amendments granted.

The court held that the respondents were entitled to costs because the moving party was largely unsuccessful.

Although the respondents sought over $30,000 including substantial indemnity costs for abandoned claims, the court rejected punitive costs and applied the partial indemnity scale.

A proportionate costs award of $20,000 all-inclusive was ordered.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, and related torts arising from withdrawn murder charges.

The Crown defendants moved under Rule 21.01 to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, as an abuse of process.

The court held that witness immunity protected the police officers for statements connected to prior proceedings and that the officers neither initiated the prosecution nor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

The pleadings contained bald allegations of malice and collusion without the material facts required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also found the claim barred by a prior consent dismissal involving the Crown and concluded that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.