Dana M. Peebles

Two class action proceedings—one against TELUS Communications Company and related entities, and one against Bell Mobility Inc.—were brought by plaintiffs alleging that the defendants engaged in similar practices of rounding up seconds to minutes on cell phone bills.

The defendants moved to consolidate the two actions for trial or summary judgment.

The court granted the motion to hear the two summary judgment motions consecutively in a single three-week block of hearing time, finding that the common issues were identical and that separate proceedings would create an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and risk inconsistent findings.

However, the court determined that the case management judge would not preside over the summary judgment motions, as the principles underlying Rules 37.15(1) and 77.06(2)—which prohibit a case management judge from presiding at trial without consent—apply equally to summary judgment motions.

In this putative securities class action arising from alleged misconduct by the former CEO of Endeavour Mining, the plaintiffs moved for an order requiring defendants to deliver statements of defence and produce insurance information by November 21, 2025.

The defendants opposed both requests, arguing that no statement of defence is required before leave to proceed is granted under the Securities Act, and that insurance information disclosure is premature.

The court dismissed both aspects of the motion, finding that prior to OSA leave being granted, the statutory claim is a nullity and therefore no defence is required, and that insurance disclosure is premature absent settlement discussions or leave being granted.

The court approved a $30 million settlement in a class action brought by shareholders of Aphria Inc. against the company and two of its officers, alleging misrepresentations in public disclosures about major business acquisitions.

The settlement was reached on the eve of trial after extensive discovery and negotiation, with the court finding the terms fair and reasonable given the risks of trial and potential insolvency proceedings.

The court also approved class counsel fees, disbursements, a levy to the Class Proceedings Fund, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court approved a Notice Plan for a proposed settlement in a certified class action between Vecchio Longo Consulting Services Inc. and Aphria Inc. et al.

The Notice Plan, developed by class counsel and to be administered by RicePoint Administration Inc., was found to be fair, reasonable, and effective in providing adequate notice to class members regarding the settlement approval hearing and related matters.

The court confirmed that the plan met the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and ordered that the Notice Plan proceed as proposed.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement arising from a 2020 ransomware attack on Blackbaud, a cloud software provider, which resulted in the exfiltration of personal data of its customers' constituents.

Despite the data breach, no evidence of actual harm or misuse of the exfiltrated data emerged over four years.

The plaintiff sought certification for settlement purposes and approval of a cy-près settlement of $340,000, to be distributed to two academic institutions focused on internet policy and data security.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the low likelihood of success in litigation due to the absence of provable damages and the unlikelihood of establishing claims in negligence or intrusion upon seclusion.

The court also approved an unusual notice plan, dispensing with pre-approval notice to the class due to the impracticality of identifying and notifying class members and the low value of the opt-out right.

However, the court significantly reduced class counsel's requested fees from 33.3% to approximately 17.5% of the settlement amount, citing the case's lack of objective success and to discourage the "churning of bad cases."

The appellant, William Daniel Lewis, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a class action against Uber entities.

The core issue was whether the action, seeking a rebate of GST remitted to the government, was prohibited by the Excise Tax Act (ETA).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that section 312 of the ETA prohibits such actions, as the ETA provides a complete statutory framework for GST rebates, with exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Tax Court.

The court also agreed that section 224.1 of the ETA reinforces this statutory bar, extending protection from civil liability to tax collectors acting in compliance with the ETA.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a putative class action sought leave to discontinue the action under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with the defendants' consent.

The action alleged Bell Canada miscalculated a 1998 cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increase for pensioners.

This issue was resolved through an "Action Plan" negotiated between Bell and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), resulting in approximately $84.2 million in retroactive payments to affected pensioners.

The court found the action moot and granted leave to discontinue, approving the proposed notice plan, as the discontinuance would not prejudice the putative class members.

This decision concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel's fees related to pension indexing benefits for members of the Brewer’s Retail, Inc. Pension Plan.

The dispute revolved around whether indexing constituted a protected pension benefit under the Pension Benefits Act.

The settlement provides for a 0.9% annual adjustment to pension benefits for pre-2010 service, with a specific fund allocated for certain class members requiring a claims process.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was the result of arm's-length negotiations and avoided the "all or nothing" risk of litigation.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved as fair and reasonable, representing a significant reduction from their dockets and a modest percentage of the total settlement value.

This case concerns the dismissal of an individual action against LifeLabs Inc. following a criminal cyber-attack that exposed customer data.

The plaintiff, Asif Rahman, had commenced an individual action, which was held in abeyance while a class action, Carter v. LifeLabs Inc., proceeded.

The class action was certified for settlement purposes, and the settlement was subsequently approved, binding all class members who did not opt out, including the plaintiff.

LifeLabs sought to dismiss the individual action.

The court, by consent, ordered the dismissal of the plaintiff's action without costs, noting that while the plaintiff's delay in consenting to dismissal caused some unnecessary expense, the circumstances did not warrant a costs award against him.

The Defendant, Bell Mobility Inc., brought a motion to amend the certified class definition in a class action, seeking either to exclude business customers or to compel the addition of a new sub-class with a separate representative plaintiff.

The Defendant argued that business customers might be statute-barred or had distinct interests requiring separate representation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation issue was not ripe for determination on a class-wide basis as it required individualized discoverability analysis.

The court also declined to create a new sub-class, emphasizing judicial economy and the principle against "litigation in installments" given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action alleging that Uber improperly calculated Goods and Services Tax (GST) on pre-discounted Uber Eats orders, claiming violations of the Excise Tax Act (ETA), provincial consumer protection legislation, the Competition Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the certification motion, primarily finding that the claim was barred by ss. 224.1 and 312 of the ETA.

The court characterized the action as an attempt to recover tax outside the comprehensive statutory scheme provided by the ETA, which includes a rebate mechanism.

Additionally, the court identified other deficiencies, including inadequate pleadings for certain causes of action, issues with class identifiability due to varying promotional language, and a lack of commonality among proposed issues, concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

This is a privacy law class action concerning a data breach at LifeLabs.

The plaintiffs moved for court approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the low likelihood of success at trial given recent legal developments regarding data breach claims and lack of proven damages.

Class counsel's requested fee of 25% of the settlement funds was also approved.

However, the court denied the representative plaintiffs' request for a $2,500 honorarium each, finding their contribution, while valuable, was not exceptional enough to warrant such an award.

The defendants, Uber Canada Inc. et al., brought a motion for a protective order to safeguard commercially sensitive information related to class size and promotional data, which they were compelled to disclose under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in a putative class action.

The plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

Applying the three-part test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan, the court found a strong public interest in protecting such information, that no reasonable alternatives existed, and that the benefits of the order outweighed any negative effects on the open court principle.

The motion was granted, and the protective order was issued.

The plaintiff in a putative class action sought court approval for a third-party funding agreement.

The agreement aimed to indemnify the plaintiff for adverse costs in exchange for a share of any litigation proceeds, as the plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining financing from the Class Proceedings Fund.

The court reviewed the agreement against the requirements of the recently amended s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which codifies the approval process for such agreements.

The court found the agreement fair and reasonable, ensuring plaintiff control over litigation, and confirmed the funder's financial capacity.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The motion was granted, and the third-party funding agreement was approved.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed its motion to stay a class proceeding initiated by Brewers Retail Inc. and a committee of pension plan members.

The class proceeding sought court approval of a comprehensive settlement regarding pension indexing issues, including amendments to the pension plan and trust, and compensation for known and unknown plan members.

FSRA argued that the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) had exclusive jurisdiction over these matters under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and the Financial Services Tribunal Act, 2017 (FSTA).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction, noting that neither the FSTA nor the PBA contained clear and unequivocal language ousting the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction to approve settlements and vary trusts.

The court affirmed that the class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the FST lacked the power to approve the settlement or vary the pension trust, and the class action provided the necessary finality for all affected plan members.

This is a motion for certification for settlement purposes in a proposed privacy law class action concerning a data breach affecting 8.6 million customers of LifeLabs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs sought court approval for certifying the action for settlement, approving the settlement notices (Short and Long Form), and a plan for their dissemination.

The court granted the motion, finding that all criteria for certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in the settlement context.

The settlement involves a guaranteed fund of $4.9 million and a contingent fund of $4.9 million, with claimants receiving a minimum of $50.

The plaintiff in a securities class action brought a motion to discontinue the action against the underwriter defendants and to unconditionally certify the primary market misrepresentation claim against the remaining corporate and individual defendants.

The action had been stalled due to an appeal regarding the disclosure of prospectus purchasers needed to find a representative plaintiff against the underwriters.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding it was in the best interests of the class to avoid further delay and proceed against the remaining defendants, who were jointly and severally liable and financially capable of satisfying a judgment.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment certifying a class action settlement.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) intervened to oppose the certification and sought a stay, but was entirely unsuccessful on the merits.

The court considered costs submissions from Brewers Retail Inc. (Applicant), the Committee representing the proposed class of pensioners (Respondents), and FSRA (Intervenor).

The court denied FSRA's request for costs, finding its intervention caused additional costs for other parties.

The court awarded Brewers Retail Inc. $159,000 and the Committee $51,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by FSRA, finding their efforts necessary and reasonable given FSRA's strenuous opposition.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Aphria Inc., its directors/officers, and several underwriters, alleging misrepresentations in both the primary and secondary markets regarding two corporate acquisitions.

The plaintiff sought leave to discontinue certain claims, leave to assert secondary market claims under the Securities Act, and certification of the class action.

The court granted the discontinuances and leave for the secondary market claims, certifying them on consent.

For the primary market claims against the underwriters, the court held that the 'Ragoonanan Principle' still applies in Ontario, meaning a representative plaintiff must have a direct cause of action against each defendant.

Since the plaintiff only purchased shares in the secondary market, it could not represent primary market purchasers.

However, the court conditionally certified the primary market claims, giving class counsel 100 days to recruit an eligible representative plaintiff who purchased shares in the prospectus offering.

The defendants in a proposed privacy class action regarding a data breach brought a motion to transfer and stay four identical Small Claims Court actions.

The court held that under s. 13 of the Class Proceedings Act, the small claims should be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the certification motion, as allowing them to proceed would circumvent the opt-out provisions of the Act.

However, the court declined to transfer the actions to the Superior Court, finding such a transfer premature until the certification motion is decided.