Charles M. Wright

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 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 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.

In a proposed class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought court approval of a third party litigation funding agreement that would bind the plaintiffs and class members.

Notice of the agreement was provided to the defendants and large shareholder members of the class, and no party opposed the motion.

The court considered prior jurisprudence regarding litigation funding agreements and noted that the proposed agreement contained a scaled and capped commission structure addressing concerns previously raised about third party funding arrangements.

The court found the agreement consistent with the principles articulated in earlier cases and noted it represented a cost saving compared with the Class Proceedings Fund.

The agreement was approved.

In a securities class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act, the plaintiffs sought certification for settlement purposes against certain underwriters, approval of three settlements totalling approximately $10.85 million, approval of counsel fees, and approval of a proposed plan of allocation.

The court held that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved them, along with counsel fees and the appointment of an administrator.

However, the court rejected the parties’ proposed distribution plan because it excluded class members who purchased shares on the day of the corrective disclosure from any compensation.

Exercising its authority to determine the plan of allocation, the court varied the distribution plan to include those purchasers and approved the modified plan as fair and reasonable.

The Ontario Plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $117 million settlement and release of claims against Ernst & Young LLP within the CCAA restructuring of Sino-Forest Corporation.

Several institutional investors objected, arguing that the settlement improperly extinguished their opt-out rights under the Class Proceedings Act and that the third-party release was not justified under the CCAA.

The court approved the settlement and release, finding them fair, reasonable, and rationally related to the restructuring plan.

The court held that claims compromised within a CCAA proceeding do not afford opt-out rights, and the settlement provided a substantial benefit to stakeholders.

The plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation by a public issuer and its directors and officers in continuous disclosure documents.

They also requested approval to discontinue common law negligent misrepresentation and oppression remedy claims in favour of the statutory cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiffs met the statutory leave test by demonstrating good faith and a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

It further concluded that discontinuance of the common law and oppression claims would not prejudice class members because the statutory claim avoided reliance issues and certification difficulties.

The action was certified as a class proceeding, with identifiable class members, common issues, and a preferable procedure established.

The moving party sought certification of a national class proceeding alleging that organic asphalt roofing shingles manufactured by the defendants were defective and prone to premature failure.

Claims were advanced in negligence and under various provincial consumer protection statutes, asserting that the shingles failed prematurely and exposed homeowners to risks such as water penetration, mould, and structural damage.

The defendants opposed certification on the grounds that the claim disclosed only pure economic loss, that no common defect existed across the products, and that individual remedies were preferable.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, that expert evidence provided some basis in fact for a common defect, and that the proposed class and common issues met the statutory requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

A class proceeding was found to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the efficiency of resolving common issues collectively.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a price‑fixing class action for settlement purposes against certain chocolate manufacturers and approval of a settlement with one defendant.

The action alleged a conspiracy to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of chocolate confectionery products in Canada, contrary to competition law.

The court considered the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and approved certification for settlement purposes, noting that common issues and preferable procedure criteria were satisfied.

The court further approved a $5.3 million settlement with the settling defendant, including cooperation provisions and a most‑favoured‑nation clause, finding the compromise fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

An interim class counsel fee award of $800,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax was approved, subject to possible adjustment depending on future settlements.

The moving parties in a proposed securities misrepresentation class proceeding sought court approval of a third‑party litigation funding agreement prior to certification.

The proposed agreement provided that the funder would pay certain disbursements and indemnify the plaintiffs against adverse costs in exchange for a capped commission from any settlement or judgment.

The court considered the developing law on litigation funding, including concerns about champerty and maintenance, and confirmed that such agreements are not categorically unlawful but require judicial approval.

Finding that the agreement preserved counsel’s independence, protected defendants through security for costs, and promoted access to justice, the court approved the funding arrangement.

The moving party sought court approval of a class action settlement alleging that the defendant utility breached s. 4 of the Interest Act by charging monthly interest on overdue accounts without disclosing the equivalent annual rate.

The proposed settlement provided approximately $5.8 million in compensation through refunds to certain class members, cancellation of excess interest charges, and cy près distributions to charitable organizations.

The court applied the established settlement approval criteria and concluded the agreement was fair, reasonable, and within the range of acceptable outcomes given litigation risks and administrative constraints.

The court also approved class counsel’s contingency fee of 25% of the recovery.

However, the request for a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff was denied because the circumstances did not meet the threshold of exceptional contribution.