C. Wright

This motion for directions addresses appeals of rejected claims in a class action settlement concerning cathode ray tubes (CRT) products.

The Claims Administrator had rejected claims, often using generic reasons, for insufficient proof of purchase.

The court clarified the interpretation of the Distribution Protocol, emphasizing that while declarations alone are insufficient, "comparable verification" should be accepted.

The court also ruled that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel do not have the authority to unilaterally amend the appeal process, which is under court control.

The appeals for certain class members were allowed and remitted for reconsideration, with directions for the Claims Administrator to provide fact-specific and instructive grounds for future decisions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes and to approve a settlement agreement with certain defendants alleged to have participated in a conspiracy to fix prices in the cathode ray tube (CRT) industry.

The settlement provided for a payment of $4.15 million and additional non‑monetary cooperation.

The court held that the action met the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for settlement purposes and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiff also sought approval of contingency fees, disbursements, and taxes pursuant to the retainer agreement.

The court found the requested fees and disbursements reasonable given the complexity and risks of the litigation.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding liquid crystal display (LCD) panels.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Competition Act, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims (discoverability).

The court also held that the discoverability principle applies to the limitation period in s. 36(4) of the Competition Act.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian aftermarket oil and air filter market sought court approval of a settlement resolving the litigation.

The settlement provided for payment of $350,000, subject to an opt-out threshold, with a distribution protocol requiring significant purchase thresholds for direct recovery and a cy-près allocation to a consumer organization for remaining funds.

The court considered the risks of continuing litigation, including evidentiary issues, uncertainty regarding proof of conspiracy and price impact, and the pending Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning indirect purchaser rights.

Concluding that the settlement represented a fair, reasonable, and pragmatic resolution given the litigation risks, the court approved both the settlement and the reduced contingency fee arrangement.