Charles M. Wright

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order denying an amendment to the class definition to include all downstream purchasers of LCD panels and products.

The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, noting that the motion judge properly exercised discretion under the Class Proceedings Act and correctly characterized the plaintiff's attempt to re-litigate a previously settled issue as an abuse of process.

Leave to appeal was denied.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of three settlements in ongoing auto-parts price-fixing class actions.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of settlements with Hitachi (CDN$6,667,084), Autoliv (US$3.2 million), and Leoni (CDN$250,000), along with substantial cooperation from the defendants.

The court also considered certification for settlement purposes for the Occupant Safety Systems action against Autoliv and the Automotive Wire Harness Systems action against Leoni.

The court approved all settlements, finding them within a zone of reasonableness based on U.S. settlements, Canadian sales, and cooperation provided.

Additionally, class counsel's legal fees (25% of allocated settlement amounts) and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were approved, emphasizing the importance of robust contingency fee arrangements for access to justice.

The court approved a $2.1 billion class action settlement for Canadian owners and lessees of VW 2.0-litre diesel vehicles affected by the "defeat device" fraud.

The settlement provides cash payments and options for vehicle buyback or emissions modification, with the buyback option generally offering a larger recovery.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, exceeding what members would likely recover under provincial consumer protection legislation or tort law.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes regarding Volkswagen's installation of a 'defeat device' in certain diesel vehicles.

The court found that the requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, including an identifiable class and common issues.

The court also determined it had jurisdiction to certify a national class, noting the efficiency and comity of doing so.

The motion for certification, along with the approval of an unprecedentedly comprehensive notice plan, was granted.

This decision approves two class action settlements against Furukawa and Fujikura defendants for price-fixing in the automotive wire harness systems (AWHS) industry.

The court certified the class actions for settlement purposes, finding that the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The settlements, for $2.3 million (Furukawa) and $1,083,280 (Fujikura), were deemed fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class, based on detailed affidavit evidence from class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, calculated as a 25% contingency plus disbursements and taxes, consistent with retainer agreements and prior jurisprudence.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the LCD industry, asserting claims in civil conspiracy and under s. 36 of the Competition Act.

The defendants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion regarding limitation periods, while the plaintiff appealed the denial of leave to amend its statement of claim to add a direct purchaser.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the defendants' appeal on the civil conspiracy limitation issue as the order was interlocutory and leave was not granted.

The Court affirmed that the discoverability principle applies to the limitation period in s. 36(4)(a)(i) of the Competition Act.

The Court also allowed the plaintiff's appeal, granting leave to amend the statement of claim, and confirmed that it is not plain and obvious that a breach of s. 45 of the Competition Act cannot serve as the unlawful means for a civil conspiracy claim.

The plaintiffs and defendants both sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding an alleged global price-fixing conspiracy in the lithium-ion battery industry.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the denial of certification for claims relating to unlawful means conspiracy and umbrella purchasers.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the certification of the civil remedy claim under s. 36 of the Competition Act.

The Divisional Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions and that the issues merited appellate attention.

The defendants' motion for leave to appeal was denied, as they failed to establish conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The representative plaintiff, Fanshawe College, sought to amend the class definition in a certified class proceeding alleging price-fixing of LCD panels.

Two amendments were proposed: a broad "all purchasers' amendment" to include all direct and indirect purchasers, and an "alternative amendment" to expand the list of named OEMs and distributors.

The court denied the "all purchasers' amendment" finding it an abuse of process as it attempted to re-litigate an issue previously abandoned and decided by the certification judge.

However, the court granted the "alternative amendment" as it was specifically contemplated by the certification judge and the claims were not found to be time-barred.

The parties sought costs following a certification motion (where the plaintiffs were successful) and a jurisdiction motion (where the defendants were successful).

The plaintiffs initially sought over $600,000 but reduced their claim to $268,301.22, while the remaining defendants sought $228,575.05.

The court found the jurisdiction motion was highly complex and awarded the defendants their full requested amount.

For the certification motion, the court noted that class counsel had already been substantially compensated through prior settlements with other defendants.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $228,575.05 for the certification motion and ordered the two costs awards to be offset against each other.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding air freight shipping services brought a motion for approval of a notice of hearing regarding a settlement with one of the defendants.

The plaintiffs also sought orders requiring non-settling defendants and a non-party association to produce customer information, and authorizing freight forwarders to voluntarily disclose customer information, to facilitate the notice and claims process.

The court approved the notice plan and granted the production orders, finding that section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act satisfies the requirements for disclosure under section 7(3)(c) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

The plaintiffs brought motions for settlement approval and fee approval in several class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The court certified the actions against Yazaki and Chiyoda for settlement purposes.

The court approved settlements with Yazaki and Chiyoda totaling over $11 million, noting that class counsel provided supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amounts fell within the zone of reasonableness.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee request.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Purchasers of the Applicants' Securities moved for approval of a settlement agreement and plan of allocation in the context of CCAA proceedings involving Cash Store Financial Services and related entities.

The settlement provided for a payment of $13,779,167 by the defendants to resolve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding financial results.

The court approved the settlement and the associated third-party releases, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

The motion to approve the plan of allocation was adjourned on consent.

In CCAA proceedings involving a global settlement of securities class actions arising from the restructuring of a payday lending group, class counsel sought court approval of legal fees and disbursements payable from the settlement fund.

The requested fees represented approximately 25.29% of the settlement amount and were incurred on a contingency basis.

The court considered the risks undertaken, the success achieved, the terms of the retainer agreements, and the range of percentages approved in comparable class proceedings.

Despite objections from several entities claiming the fees were excessive, the court found the request fair and reasonable.

The court approved the fees, disbursements, and modest honoraria to representative plaintiffs.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed national class action alleging negligent design and failure to warn in relation to transvaginal mesh medical devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action and that the proposed class definition satisfied the identifiable class requirement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the plaintiffs failed to establish some-basis-in-fact for common issues, particularly because no specific design defect in the polypropylene mesh or common inadequacy in the warnings across nine different products was identified.

The evidence demonstrated significant variation among the devices, their uses, and potential complications, undermining commonality.

The certification motion was therefore adjourned under s. 5(4) of the Act to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their materials and provide further evidence supporting common issues.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging a global price-fixing conspiracy by the defendants regarding airfreight shipping services.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action as it related to absent foreign claimants, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court granted the motion, finding that the real and substantial connection test should not be applied to establish jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants, as an Ontario judgment would not be recognized abroad, offending principles of order, fairness, and comity.

Alternatively, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, it would decline it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The moving defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a certification order in a class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for polyether polyol products.

The motion argued that the pleadings were deficient, that the motions judge failed to review evidence supporting the proposed common issues, and that the plaintiff’s economist lacked the required expertise.

The court held that certification judges are entitled to deference and that the certification stage requires only some basis in fact that certification criteria are met, not proof of the underlying conspiracy.

Reading the certification reasons contextually, the court concluded that the motions judge had considered the applicable principles and that there was no serious doubt as to the correctness of the order.

The moving defendants therefore failed to satisfy the leave test under Rule 62.02(4).

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Dow defendants for an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the market for polyether polyol products.

The court reviewed the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on indirect purchaser claims.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed with a plausible methodology for proving class-wide loss, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the plaintiff was a suitable representative.

The motion for certification was granted.

Motion seeking court approval of a proposed settlement and class counsel fees in a securities class proceeding.

The action alleged that a forestry company and its officers issued materially misleading financial statements and prospectus disclosures, contrary to Canadian generally accepted accounting principles, which artificially inflated share prices.

The claims included negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory causes of action under the Securities Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act.

After arm’s‑length negotiations and mediation, the parties reached a $1.9 million settlement funded by the defendants’ insurer.

The court held the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved both the settlement and reduced contingency fees.