Charles M. Wright

Class counsel brought a motion for approval of the final $500,000 tranche of legal fees and additional disbursements following the near-completion of the administration of a $21 million settlement regarding pelvic mesh devices.

The court previously approved the settlement and the majority of the $5.17 million total fee request.

Finding that the aggregate fees represented a multiplier of less than 1.7 on docketed time and remained lower than the retainer agreements, the court approved the fee request.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent for an order approving the discontinuance of a proposed class action without costs.

The action alleged that the defendants breached a duty to warn about the risks of excessive bleeding associated with the anticoagulant drug Pradaxa.

Following the dismissal of the certification motion and subsequent appeals, the action remained dormant.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding no reason to refuse the request and no need to impose terms.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against TD, RBC, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank in a case alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the futures exchange market.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion, approving the settlement agreements and the plan of dissemination.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a US$7 million settlement with the Bosch defendants regarding the installation of 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles, as well as approval of class counsel's legal fees.

The settlement targeted 'leftover damages' for class members who were not made whole under previous settlements with the vehicle manufacturers.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the pragmatic distribution protocol and the low number of objections.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee, finding it presumptively valid and noting that the distribution mechanism would ensure high take-up by eligible claimants.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totaling $1,391,715.45 following a successful, but partially limited, certification motion in a class action against several financial institutions.

The Defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing their substantial success in narrowing the class definition and potential double recovery from prior settlements.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in legal fees and HST, payable forthwith, and ordered disbursements of $468,705.06 payable in the cause.

The reduction in fees reflected the Defendants' success in streamlining the class action and reducing their potential liability, which the court deemed important for the integrity of the class actions regime and to discourage overambitious claims, without constituting a distributive costs award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $21.5 million settlement agreement in a class action regarding transvaginal mesh medical devices manufactured by the defendants.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was the product of arm's length negotiations and offered good monetary compensation.

The court also approved the distribution plan, class counsel's fee request of $5.375 million plus disbursements, and honoraria of $10,000 for each representative plaintiff.

This decision concerns a motion by the plaintiffs to discontinue a proposed class action in Ontario regarding optionally retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters manufactured by the defendants.

The discontinuance was sought to facilitate the settlement of 11 individual claims.

The court, pursuant to sections 19 and 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, approved the discontinuance and the proposed notice to putative class members.

The court found that the discontinuance would not prejudice non-settling class members, as similar class proceedings were ongoing in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and limitation periods remained suspended.

The motion was granted without costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against a group of defendant banks in a proceeding alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settling defendants agreed to pay $250,000.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and approved the settlement agreement, the notices, and the plan of dissemination.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action regarding transvaginal mesh implants manufactured by the defendants.

The parties reached a settlement agreement that resolves the claims of many putative class members and provides a process for others to participate or pursue individual claims.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding that it was beneficial to settling class members and did not prejudice the remaining putative class members.

The court also approved the payment of $1,085,000 in costs to class counsel.

The representative plaintiffs and class counsel sought approval of a $21 million settlement in two certified class actions concerning allegedly defective transvaginal mesh devices.

They also sought approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, a distribution protocol, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The court found the settlement, distribution plan, and fee requests to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The motion was granted, approving the settlement, the distribution protocol, class counsel fees of approximately $4.17 million, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

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.

This decision concerns a motion for judicial approval of a class action settlement and class counsel's legal fees in the Body Sealing Products action, part of a larger series of auto parts price-fixing class actions.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a $5.75 million settlement with the Nishikawa defendants, which also included cooperation.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within the established 'zone of reasonableness' benchmarked against U.S. settlements.

Class counsel's request for a 25% contingency fee plus disbursements and taxes was also approved, consistent with prior jurisprudence on class action fee approvals.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for judicial approval of 13 discrete auto part class action settlements with the HIAMS, Mitsuba, NGK, and Sumitomo Riko defendants, totaling approximately $14.8 million.

The court found that each of the proposed settlements fell within a zone of reasonableness, noting that the Canadian settlement amounts were proportionate to related American settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, plus disbursements and taxes, finding it presumptively valid.

The plaintiffs in 42 class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry sought judicial approval for 15 discrete settlements with Aisan, Bosch, Melco, and Omron defendants, totaling CDN$13,483,524.

The court also considered a motion to discontinue certain actions against Bosch and approved class counsel's contingency fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlements fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within a zone of reasonableness when compared to related U.S. settlements.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding brought a motion to determine whether a 'loan forgiveness' benefit under a settlement agreement was triggered.

The benefit was payable if there was no Approved Emissions Modification (AEM) by June 15, 2017.

The US EPA approved a fix on May 19, 2017, but it was not implemented in Canada until June 23, 2017.

The court held that the definition of AEM, which required the fix to be 'implementable in Canada', meant available within a reasonable time, not immediately available.

Therefore, the AEM existed by the deadline and the loan forgiveness benefit was not triggered.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a class action certification decision concerning alleged price-fixing of colour display tubes.

The motion for leave to appeal raised three main issues: whether an unlawful means conspiracy claim could be based on the Competition Act, whether "umbrella purchasers" had a viable cause of action, and whether the methodology for establishing class-wide harm met the "credible and plausible" standard.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of umbrella purchasers due to conflicting jurisprudence and concerns about indeterminate liability, but denied leave on the other two issues, finding the certification judge applied the correct test for common issues and that the Competition Act is not a complete code precluding common law claims.