Barbara Conway

Two competing proposed class actions alleged an international price‑fixing conspiracy relating to rechargeable lithium‑ion batteries and related consumer electronic products.

Counsel in each action sought carriage of the class proceeding and a stay of the other action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court assessed factors including the scope of the claims, progress of the actions, proposed representative plaintiffs, class definitions, coordination with related proceedings, and the preparedness and strategic approach of counsel.

While both sets of counsel were experienced and many factors were neutral, the court found that the Shah action demonstrated a more proactive and coordinated approach, including earlier steps to refine the class definition, add defendants, obtain case management, and coordinate expert analysis.

The court concluded that awarding carriage to that action best advanced the interests of the proposed class.

In a motion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, class counsel sought court approval of legal fees following settlement of three related institutional abuse class actions involving provincially operated facilities for individuals with developmental disabilities.

The settlements created a total fund of $67.7 million, with additional administration and notice costs bringing the total cash value to approximately $70.7 million.

Class counsel requested $14 million in fees, representing approximately 20.68% of the settlement fund, plus disbursements and taxes.

The court applied the established factors for approving class counsel fees, including litigation risk, complexity, time invested, results achieved, and expectations of the class.

Finding the requested contingency fee within the common range for class actions and reasonable given the risks and work performed, the court approved the fees, disbursements, taxes, and the allocation of fees among the three actions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of settlements in two class actions against the Crown regarding the operation of the Rideau Regional Centre and the Southwestern Regional Centre, residential facilities for individuals with developmental disabilities.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duties resulting in harm and abuse.

The court approved the settlements, which included a $32.7 million settlement fund, a claims-based compensation scheme, an apology from the Premier, and other non-monetary benefits, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a class action settlement under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 arising from a Legionnaires’ Disease outbreak at a municipal long‑term care facility.

The settlement created a compensation fund for class members with tiered payments based on hospitalization and permitted challenges to categorization and references for additional damages.

The court applied established factors governing settlement approval and concluded the agreement fell within the zone of reasonable outcomes given litigation risk, delay, and the advanced age of many class members.

The court also approved class counsel fees and modest stipends for representative plaintiffs.

Due to a conflict with counsel and ongoing objections, one representative plaintiff was removed during the administration phase of the settlement.

Following certification of a pension-related class proceeding, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $210,000 for the certification motion.

The defendants conceded entitlement to costs but argued the claimed amount was excessive and opposed joint and several liability.

Applying the principles governing certification motion costs, including those articulated in Pearson v. Inco Ltd., the court determined that the plaintiff’s claimed costs were somewhat excessive and unsupported in part.

The court fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs at $175,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendants were not held jointly and severally liable; instead, four groups of defendants were ordered to each pay an equal share.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of a $35 million settlement in a class action against the Crown regarding alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duties at the Huronia Regional Centre, a residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities.

The settlement included a claims-based compensation scheme, an apology from the Crown, and various non-monetary benefits.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the litigation risks and the advanced age of the class members.

The court also approved a $15,000 honorarium for each of the representative plaintiffs.

The applicant transit authority sought court approval of a negotiated settlement in a class proceeding concerning entitlement to proceeds arising from the demutualization of a life insurance company that issued group life insurance policies to employees and retirees.

The settlement provided that approximately 62% of the proceeds would be distributed to eligible employees and retirees and the remainder to the employer, with deductions for distribution and legal costs.

The court applied the established test under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for approving class action settlements and considered factors including fairness of allocation, litigation risk, negotiation process, notice to class members, and absence of objections.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved the distribution scheme and related legal and administrative fees.

Ancillary orders were granted permitting sharing of contact information for distribution purposes and sealing the final list of eligible recipients to protect personal information.

An Ontario resident brought a proposed securities class action against a U.K. issuer alleging secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The defendant moved to stay the action in part, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction over claims of investors who purchased securities on foreign exchanges and that the matter should proceed in U.S. or U.K. courts.

The court held that the statutory cause of action under s. 138.3 constitutes a statutory tort presumptively connected to Ontario where an Ontario investor is deemed to have relied on the misrepresentation.

The legislation did not restrict claims to purchases on Ontario exchanges, and the defendant failed to rebut the presumptive connecting factor.

The court further found the defendant did not establish that foreign courts were clearly more appropriate forums.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed product liability class action for settlement purposes and to approve a negotiated settlement and class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleged design and manufacturing defects in certain windows that permitted water penetration and caused wood rot and property damage.

The court held that the requirements for certification under s. 5(1) were met in the settlement context and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The proposed settlement, which provided compensation through a claims process or expedited arbitration and included no cap on total benefits, was found to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $650,000 as reasonable in light of the risks and work undertaken.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed national class proceeding (excluding Quebec) concerning alleged premature failure of bulbs in certain model televisions, approval of a negotiated settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approval of class counsel fees.

The court held that the certification requirements under s. 5(1) were satisfied in the settlement context and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

Applying the settlement approval framework from Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance and related authorities, the court found the negotiated settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.

The settlement extended warranties and provided reimbursement for replacement bulbs subject to a claims process.

The court also approved class counsel fees as reasonable given the risks assumed and the results achieved.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of members of the Eastern Canada Car Carriers Pension Plan against the plan's trustees, administrative agent, and actuaries.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently or in breach of trust granted early retirement benefits when the plan had ongoing solvency issues, leading to a reduction in benefits for plan members.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence and breach of trust, the class was identifiable, there were common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action alleging that the defendant airline improperly charged United States transportation taxes on ticket purchases.

The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court held that Ontario had presence‑based jurisdiction because the defendant carried on business in Ontario and there was a real and substantial connection to the dispute.

The revenue rule did not bar adjudication because the action did not seek to enforce foreign tax laws but rather challenged the defendant’s collection of charges from customers.

The motion was dismissed with respect to claims relating to tickets paid for in Canada but granted in relation to tickets paid for in the United States, which were stayed as U.S. courts were the clearly more appropriate forum.

In a certified class proceeding concerning the partial wind-up of a supplemental retirement plan, the defendant insurer brought a refusals motion seeking production of income information, tax assessments, and projected retirement income from the representative plaintiff and certain subclass members.

The defendant argued the information was necessary for its actuarial expert to quantify potential damages.

The court held that the requested information related to individual damage quantification rather than the certified common issues, which were limited to liability and the methodology for calculating damages.

Because the trial judge had not yet determined the methodology for assessing damages or whether aggregate damages could be assessed, ordering production was premature.

The court also held that obtaining information from absent class members would require leave under s. 15 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Police Governing Authority granting an extension of time to serve a Notice of Hearing for disciplinary action.

The applicant was not given notice of the request for an extension and had no opportunity to make submissions.

The Divisional Court held that this failure breached minimal requirements of procedural fairness, rendering the decision fundamentally flawed and justifying intervention despite the interlocutory nature of the ruling.

The court quashed the decision and ordered the applicant's salary to be paid for the period of his suspension.

The applicants, comprising 118 limited partnerships, sought judicial review of the Minister of Energy's directions to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) to change the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Program rules.

The applicants had submitted numerous applications under the original FIT Rules 1.0 and argued that the new FIT Rules 2.0 were applied retroactively, breached their legitimate expectations, and interfered with vested rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's policy directions were subject to a reasonableness standard of review.

The court held that the applicants had no vested rights or legitimate expectations that the program rules would remain unchanged, as the FIT Program was a discretionary government policy initiative subject to modification.

The applicant sought to prohibit the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) from conducting a hearing into whether the applicant should pay costs to the respondents following an unsuccessful appeal.

The applicant argued that the lack of a transcript and the OMB member's refusal to consider a lawyer's notes demonstrated bias and precluded a fair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that courts generally will not entertain piecemeal attacks on administrative proceedings before a final decision is made.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint as abandoned.

The Tribunal had directed a summary hearing and deferred the applicant's request for document production until after the hearing.

The applicant refused to provide dates for the summary hearing until his document request was answered, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal acted reasonably and within its rights to control its own process when faced with the applicant's refusal to cooperate.

The appellant mother appealed a final order awarding the respondent father retroactive and ongoing child support.

She raised procedural fairness issues, including an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias because the father's spouse previously worked at the trial judge's former law firm.

The Divisional Court dismissed the procedural fairness grounds, finding no evidence to support the bias claim and no error in refusing an adjournment or an amendment to add the spouse as a party.

On consent, the court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the retroactive child support award to three years prior to the application and to correct calculation errors under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.