Bridget M. R. Moran

This appeal arose from the claims process of a class action settlement concerning price-fixing in the cathode ray tube (CRT) market.

The appellant, Class Action Capital Recovery LLC (CAC), a third-party claims filer, appealed the supervising judge's dismissal of its motion for directions regarding the reconsideration of rejected claims.

CAC argued that the Claims Administrator failed to follow a deficiency notice process as per the Distribution Protocol and that the supervising judge exceeded jurisdiction by effectively amending the protocol.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the supervising judge's order did not contemplate further deficiency notices and was within the broad discretionary power granted by section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, during the settlement administration stage.

The court also noted that the appeal constituted a collateral attack on an unappealed prior order.

This motion to quash, heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arose in the settlement administration phase of a class action concerning price-fixing of cathode ray tube products.

Class Counsel, representing the plaintiff Fanshawe College, sought to quash an appeal brought by Class Action Capital Recovery LLC (CAC), a third-party filer for claimants.

The grounds for the motion were that the Distribution Protocol prevented further appeals and that CAC lacked standing.

The Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, CAC had standing as an agent for its clients, and the appeal was not time-barred, as the appeal period began when the lower court's order achieved sufficient clarity.

This motion for directions addresses appeals of rejected claims in a class action settlement concerning cathode ray tubes (CRT) products.

The Claims Administrator had rejected claims, often using generic reasons, for insufficient proof of purchase.

The court clarified the interpretation of the Distribution Protocol, emphasizing that while declarations alone are insufficient"comparable verification" should be accepted.

The court also ruled that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel do not have the authority to unilaterally amend the appeal process, which is under court control.

The appeals for certain class members were allowed and remitted for reconsideration, with directions for the Claims Administrator to provide fact-specific and instructive grounds for future decisions.

Two sets of appellants (manufacturers of optical disc drives) appealed the certification of a price-fixing class proceeding in British Columbia.

The majority held that the discoverability rule applies to extend the two-year limitation period in s. 36(4)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, that fraudulent concealment can toll a limitation period without requiring a special relationship between the parties, that umbrella purchasers (persons who bought from non-defendant manufacturers) have a cause of action under s. 36(1)(a), that s. 36(1) does not bar concurrent common law and equitable claims, and that a plaintiff's expert methodology need only establish that overcharges reached the indirect-purchaser level to certify loss as a common issue.

Côté J. dissented in part, finding that the discoverability rule does not apply to s. 36(4)(a)(i) and that umbrella purchasers have no cause of action under s. 36(1).

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellants brought a class action against defendant manufacturers and suppliers alleging they conspired to fix the price of lithium-ion batteries sold in Canada between January 2000 and December 2011.

The conspiracy allegedly impacted all purchasers, including "umbrella purchasers" whose batteries originated from non-defendants, as the cartel's price increases caused non-conspirators to also raise prices.

The certification judge certified only a statutory claim under the Competition Act for non-umbrella purchasers.

The Divisional Court certified an unlawful means conspiracy claim but excluded umbrella purchasers, citing indeterminate liability concerns.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the principle of indeterminate liability does not apply to either the statutory claim or the unlawful means conspiracy claim, and that umbrella purchasers should be included in the class with a subclass created for non-umbrella purchasers regarding aggregate damages quantification.