Charles Wright

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a North American-wide class action settlement regarding alleged deficiencies in the defendant's organic shingles warranty program.

The settlement enhanced the warranty, provided an independent appeal process, and had no monetary limit or expiration date.

The court found the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, noting the arm's length negotiations, early resolution, and lack of objections.