Angela Bespflug

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

The defendant moved to stay this proposed class action regarding systemic racism against Indigenous members of the RCMP, arguing the claims fell within two certified class actions (Greenwood and AMPMQ) and duplicated another proposed class action (Hudson).

The Court dismissed the motion regarding Greenwood and AMPMQ for reasons issued in Hudson.

However, as the plaintiff agreed to hold the action in abeyance pending Hudson, the Court allowed the motion in part and stayed the action pending a final determination in Hudson.

Canada moved to stay the proposed class action against the RCMP for systemic racism, arguing it was duplicative of two certified class actions (Greenwood and AMPMQ) covering harassment and discrimination.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual basis of the present action, which focuses on systemic racism through implicit misconduct and policies, is distinct from the explicit misconduct focused on in the other actions.

This motion concerns the approval of class counsel fees following a class action settlement.

Class Counsel requested approval of a fee structure involving a $6 million contribution from the Defendant and a 15% contingency fee from the compensation awarded to each class member.

The court reviewed the factors for determining fair and reasonable fees, including the results achieved, risk undertaken, time expended, and fees in similar cases.

Taking into account the premium on time expended and the lack of required post-settlement work, the court found that a contingency fee of 7%, in addition to the $6 million contribution, was fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a class action settlement agreement addressing gender and sexual orientation based harassment and discrimination of women who worked or volunteered with the RCMP but were not RCMP employees (the "Primary Class").

The settlement provides compensation ranging from $10,000 to $220,000 through a confidential claims process without a cap on the total settlement amount.

Applying the factors for class action settlement approval, the Federal Court found the agreement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class as a whole, noting it was negotiated at arm's length, supported by experienced counsel, and avoided protracted litigation.

The settlement was approved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve class action settlements with the Sumitomo and GS Electech defendants regarding alleged price-fixing of automotive wire harness systems, electronic control units, and heating control panels.

The court found the settlements, totaling $11 million for Sumitomo and $120,000 for GS Electech, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness compared to U.S. settlements and potential damages.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements.