Cheryl M. Woodin

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the representative plaintiffs in a settlement-approved class action, the defendants sought costs of $17,840 on a partial indemnity basis, requesting they be paid personally by class counsel.

Class counsel argued that awarding costs against them personally would undermine access to justice.

The court held that the defendants' request for costs against class counsel personally was improper, as class counsel was not a party and had committed no misconduct.

However, the court also rejected class counsel's access to justice arguments, finding that the representative plaintiffs, as the losing parties, were responsible for costs in the normal course.

Costs of $17,840 were awarded to the defendants, payable by the representative plaintiffs.

In a class action settlement regarding Volkswagen diesel vehicles, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking production of data relating to VW's investigation of post-repair lag and surge issues, and an extension of the claims deadline.

The plaintiffs argued that the Settlement Agreement required disclosure of this data to allow class members to make informed decisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lag/surge issue was a safety concern outside the ambit of the Settlement Agreement's provisions on reduced performance.

Consequently, the court held it had no jurisdiction under the settlement to order production of the data or to extend the claims deadline.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for pre-discovery production from non-party Volkswagen (VW), VW sought partial indemnity costs of $29,487.29.

The plaintiffs argued the motion was straightforward and suggested an award of $5,000.

The court noted the motion was of substantial importance to both parties but found some evidence of over-lawyering by VW.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $22,000 all inclusive.

In a class action, the Plaintiffs sought pre-discovery production of three million documents from Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc. et al. (VW), a non-party to the main action.

The motion was dismissed, and VW, as the successful party, sought partial indemnity costs of $29,487.29.

The Plaintiffs argued for a costs award of $5,000, contending the motion was straightforward.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the importance and complexity of the motion, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful litigant, and the conduct of the parties.

While acknowledging the motion's importance to both sides, the court found some evidence of "over-lawyering" by VW.

Applying the discretionary principles for costs awards, the court adjusted the amount and awarded VW $22,000, all inclusive.

The Plaintiffs in a class action against Robert Bosch GmbH sought pre-discovery production of three million documents from Volkswagen Group (VW), a non-party.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled a separate class action against VW, where these documents were produced under a protective order and deemed undertaking.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding it premature and that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the high threshold for non-party production under Rule 30.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted that Class Counsel had likely breached the deemed undertaking and protective order by seeking to use the documents in the Bosch action without prior consent or a court order.

The court determined the costs award following the dismissal of a securities class action against the defendant on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens grounds.

The successful defendant sought $696,393 in partial indemnity costs for both the jurisdiction and certification motions, while the plaintiff proposed $75,000 at most.

The court adjusted the defendant's request, particularly by removing expert fees for "efficient market" analysis deemed unnecessary.

Considering the timing of the jurisdiction motion and the impact of a prior analogous decision (Yip v HSBC Holdings) which simplified the legal analysis, the court fixed costs at $260,000, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness to the losing party under Rule 57.01(1).

The plaintiff, George Leon, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Volkswagen AG for fraudulent misrepresentation related to the purchase of VWAG American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and common shares on foreign exchanges.

Volkswagen AG moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, to stay it on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the action, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario, as VWAG did not carry on business in Ontario and the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation was not committed there.

The court also found that the U.S. (for ADRs) and Germany (for common shares) were clearly more appropriate forums, emphasizing the principle of international comity in cross-border securities litigation and giving little weight to the plaintiff's asserted juridical advantages in Ontario.

The court approved the $31.2 million in legal fees, disbursements, and taxes agreed upon by class counsel and the defendants (Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. et al.) following the $2.1 billion "dieselgate" class action settlement.

The fees were deemed reasonable and separate from the class members' recovery, ensuring the settlement remained generous and in the best interests of the class.

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 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.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

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.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

Telecommunications companies sought leave to appeal certification orders permitting class proceedings concerning cellular phone billing practices.

The proposed class actions alleged that the defendants breached contracts, engaged in deceptive practices contrary to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and were unjustly enriched by rounding call durations up to the nearest minute under plans described as billed “per minute.” The moving parties argued that individual contractual contexts prevented the existence of a common issue and that certification was therefore inappropriate.

The court held that the meaning of the contractual phrase “per minute billing” was a common issue capable of resolution across the class, particularly given the standardized and adhesive nature of the consumer contracts.

Leave to appeal was refused and the certification orders were left undisturbed.

Consumers brought proposed class proceedings against wireless service providers alleging that the companies billed cellular calls by rounding up partial minutes to the next full minute without adequate disclosure.

The plaintiffs advanced claims in breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and unjust enrichment, seeking certification of national and provincial classes.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action and that there was some basis in fact for common issues regarding the interpretation of standardized contracts, alleged misrepresentations about available minutes, and the uniform rounding‑up practice.

The court also held that class proceedings were the preferable procedure given the large class size and relatively small individual claims.

The actions were certified as class proceedings with defined classes and common issues.

Following a successful appeal that certified a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the court determined the costs of the original certification motion.

The appellant sought over $749,000, while the respondent argued for costs thrown away or no costs due to the appellant significantly reformulating her claim on appeal.

The Divisional Court held that while the appellant was entitled to costs because the case involved matters of public interest, the amount must be reduced to reflect the time spent on claims against defendants that were later abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the original certification motion at $125,728.03 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board arising from mass detentions during the 2010 G20 summit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The court certified two separate class actions: one for five location-based subclasses who were allegedly arbitrarily detained by police cordons, and another for individuals held at a specially created detention centre.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a class action settlement under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 arising from a Legionnaires’ Disease outbreak at a municipal long‑term care facility.

The settlement created a compensation fund for class members with tiered payments based on hospitalization and permitted challenges to categorization and references for additional damages.

The court applied established factors governing settlement approval and concluded the agreement fell within the zone of reasonable outcomes given litigation risk, delay, and the advanced age of many class members.

The court also approved class counsel fees and modest stipends for representative plaintiffs.

Due to a conflict with counsel and ongoing objections, one representative plaintiff was removed during the administration phase of the settlement.