Brian Whitwham

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant preventing the defendants from soliciting their alarm security customers, and to restrain the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the restrictive covenant, finding that the plaintiffs' rebranding and refusal to provide customer lists made compliance impractical.

However, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs or as authorized by them, citing clear evidence of dishonest sales tactics.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking relief from the deemed undertaking rule to use discovery evidence obtained in the civil proceeding to support a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the College of Pharmacists.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit referring to prior complaints under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the public interest in pursuing a professional complaint did not outweigh the prejudice to the defendants, as the plaintiff was seeking to use the civil process to obtain evidence for a separate proceeding.

The cross-motion was also dismissed as the court did not need to rely on the impugned evidence.

The plaintiffs and defendants both brought motions to adduce fresh evidence in the context of an ongoing motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the alleged repetition of the impugned conduct was relevant to assessing the nature of the conduct and the appropriate remedial response in a dynamic marketplace situation.

The court also granted the defendants' motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting that since the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce fresh evidence, the defendants were entitled to adduce further responding evidence.

Costs were reserved to be addressed as part of the costs of the interlocutory injunction motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from soliciting customers and making defamatory statements.

The parties agreed to adjourn the main motion, but the court had to decide a jurisdiction challenge and a request for an interim injunction.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction, as the exclusive forum clause in the parties' recent Termination Agreement superseded the Quebec forum clause in their earlier Dealership Agreement.

However, the court denied the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs' year-long delay in bringing the motion undermined their claim of irreparable harm pending the return of the main motion.