Darrel Hotz

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a class action for delay pursuant to section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff had issued a Notice of Action in September 2020 and a Statement of Claim in October 2020, serving it in March 2021.

However, since serving the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff's counsel had taken no steps to advance the action, nor had they communicated with the defendants' counsel or responded to the dismissal motion.

The court found that none of the statutory requirements for advancing the proceeding (such as filing a certification record or agreeing to a timetable) had been met by the first anniversary of the proceeding's commencement.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action for delay, also dispensing with the requirement for public notice of dismissal due to the existence of a parallel class action with similar claims.

The court reconsidered a previous costs award of $112,500 made against the plaintiffs following the dismissal of their refusals and interlocutory injunction motions in a proposed class action regarding a data breach.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs claim reflected over-lawyering and sought costs in the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' submissions, finding their motions were unnecessary, overreaching, and deplorably prosecuted.

The court confirmed the original partial indemnity costs award of $112,500 and awarded an additional $12,500 for the costs submissions, for a total of $125,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a settlement in a class proceeding against SiriusXM regarding the alleged unlawful collection and use of personal information from vehicle purchasers.

The proposed settlement provided for a $150,000 cy-près payment to the Automobile Protection Association to fund a privacy best practices report, with no direct compensation to class members.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the significant risks in the litigation, including the lack of evidence of actual harm or data breach, and the strong defences available to the defendants.

The settlement was approved.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval to settle and discontinue their claims against the defendant GitHub.

GitHub, an American corporation, had challenged the court's jurisdiction.

After an initial adjournment to address jurisdictional concerns, the plaintiffs submitted revised materials.

The court approved the settlement, finding that discontinuing the action against GitHub was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the litigation risks, costs, and the fact that the remaining defendants had sufficient financial strength to meet any damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes only.

The action alleged that the defendants improperly collected and used the personal information of individuals who purchased or leased vehicles equipped with satellite radios.

The court reviewed the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there was an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion was granted and the action was certified for settlement purposes.

A costs decision following a trial on retroactive child support.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $21,752.73 after obtaining a judgment for $5,000.00 in retroactive child support arrears.

The applicant sought no costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and had made compliant offers to settle that were as favorable as the trial result.

However, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, citing proportionality concerns and the applicant's financial circumstances as the sole custodial parent with no other income source.

The court awarded costs of $5,000.00, set off against the child support arrears owed.

This trial concerns the amount of retroactive child support owed by the father for the period between April 2007 and September 2010.

The parties have two children together.

The father sought to offset arrears of $16,419.53 by claiming travel expenses for access ($20,492.78), special and extraordinary expenses ($4,763.32), and loans advanced to the mother ($12,285.26).

The court found that while the father incurred legitimate access costs and advanced funds for a vehicle purchase, not all claimed offsets were appropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to reduce the arrears to $5,000.00, considering the father's financial capacity, his support of two households and six children, and the mother's ability to contribute to her children's support.