David Sterns

This decision addresses two post-appeal issues: the costs of administering a class action settlement and the final quantification of damages.

The court ordered the defendant, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, to pay reasonable administration costs.

For damages, following directions from the Court of Appeal, the court adopted the defendant's mathematical approach, awarding $28,745,304.00 to the plaintiff, Trillium Motor World Ltd., rejecting the plaintiff's proposed higher amounts based on proportional mathematical approaches or alleged enhanced bargaining power.

The plaintiffs in 42 class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry sought judicial approval for 15 discrete settlements with Aisan, Bosch, Melco, and Omron defendants, totaling CDN$13,483,524.

The court also considered a motion to discontinue certain actions against Bosch and approved class counsel's contingency fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlements fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within a zone of reasonableness when compared to related U.S. settlements.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

The applicant sought an accounting of funds raised for a community fund by the respondent mayor.

After the application was commenced, the respondent voluntarily provided the requested financial information and offered to settle on a without-costs basis.

The applicant agreed the matter was moot, but the respondent subsequently reversed course and sought a hearing on the merits to clear his name.

The court dismissed the application as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The court awarded costs to the applicant for the period after the respondent reversed his settlement position.

This is a motion to vary the Court of Appeal's decision in a solicitor's negligence case.

The moving party sought to clarify the trial judge's discretion regarding the final quantification of damages and the process for calculating the damages award, subject to a ceiling of $36.9 million.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party could not bring itself within the applicable rules permitting reconsideration of appellate decisions, and that it was not in the interests of justice to invoke the court's narrow jurisdiction to reconsider.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), the defendant sought full indemnity costs of $122,286.94 pursuant to section 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff argued the time claimed was excessive and proposed a reduced amount.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that the defendant's use of junior counsel resulted in a total fee comparable to the plaintiff's own costs, which relied heavily on senior counsel.

The court awarded the defendant the full amount claimed.

Katie Mohammed, a resident of Whitchurch-Stouffville, posted comments on social media expressing concern that an amendment to an agreement between the municipality and United Soils Management Ltd., allowing for the deposition of "acceptable fill" in a gravel pit near a water tower, could lead to groundwater contamination and harm children.

United Soils Management Ltd. sued her for defamation.

Mohammed brought a motion to dismiss the action under anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The court found that the plaintiff's action lacked substantial merit, that Mohammed had valid defenses (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, responsible communication), and that the harm suffered by the plaintiff did not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

The court also found that the plaintiff brought the proceeding in bad faith and for an improper purpose, awarding Mohammed $7,500 in damages.

This appeal arises from the 2009 General Motors of Canada bailout and the termination of franchise dealerships.

The franchisor offered Wind-Down Agreements to 240 dealers, providing payment in exchange for comprehensive releases of all claims, including those under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The dealers were required to obtain independent legal advice before signing.

A class action was subsequently brought by terminated franchisees claiming breaches of statutory rights.

The trial judge found the releases valid under the Tutor Time exception to section 11 of the Wishart Act, as they constituted settlements of known and existing claims entered into with legal advice.

The trial judge also held that covenants not to sue and indemnity provisions were void for public policy reasons but were severable from the release.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the validity of the releases and the severance of the covenant not to sue.

This appeal concerns a class action by General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) dealers against the law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP for breach of fiduciary and contractual duties.

During the 2009 financial crisis, Cassels represented three potentially conflicting clients: the Saturn Dealers, Industry Canada (regarding GMCL bailout financing), and GMCL dealers generally regarding a potential restructuring or insolvency.

The trial judge found that Cassels breached its duties by failing to disclose the conflict of interest with Industry Canada to the dealers and by failing to provide proper advice regarding Wind-Down Agreements (WDAs) offered by GMCL.

The dealers lost the opportunity to negotiate collectively for better compensation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability findings but reduced the damages award from $45 million to approximately $41 million (subject to further calculation regarding class composition).

This decision concerns the judicial approval of three settlements in ongoing auto-parts price-fixing class actions.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of settlements with Hitachi (CDN$6,667,084), Autoliv (US$3.2 million), and Leoni (CDN$250,000), along with substantial cooperation from the defendants.

The court also considered certification for settlement purposes for the Occupant Safety Systems action against Autoliv and the Automotive Wire Harness Systems action against Leoni.

The court approved all settlements, finding them within a zone of reasonableness based on U.S. settlements, Canadian sales, and cooperation provided.

Additionally, class counsel's legal fees (25% of allocated settlement amounts) and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were approved, emphasizing the importance of robust contingency fee arrangements for access to justice.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

This decision approves two class action settlements against Furukawa and Fujikura defendants for price-fixing in the automotive wire harness systems (AWHS) industry.

The court certified the class actions for settlement purposes, finding that the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The settlements, for $2.3 million (Furukawa) and $1,083,280 (Fujikura), were deemed fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class, based on detailed affidavit evidence from class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, calculated as a 25% contingency plus disbursements and taxes, consistent with retainer agreements and prior jurisprudence.

The plaintiff, Christopher Staines, brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes in a proposed class action alleging that numerous defendants conspired to fix prices in the FX Market.

Settlements were reached with UBS, BNP Paribas, and Bank of America.

The court reviewed the five-part test under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and, applying a less rigorous standard for settlement contexts, found all criteria satisfied.

The motion for certification for settlement purposes was granted.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's class action, the court addressed costs.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling $779,405.70.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a significant reduction, citing novel points of law and public interest under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court found that the complex legal issues initially raised were not ultimately pursued, rendering s. 31 inapplicable.

However, the court disallowed HMQ's costs for an unsuccessful summary judgment motion, granting the plaintiff a credit of $216,550.

Ultimately, HMQ was awarded costs fixed at $470,810 for fees and $92,045.70 for disbursements, for a total of $562,855.70.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of private issuers who operate ServiceOntario outlets, alleging that Ontario breached its duty of good faith and acted unreasonably in exercising its unilateral discretion to set their compensation.

The plaintiff argued that the compensation was inadequate and failed to keep pace with expenses.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of dishonesty or bad faith by Ontario.

The court held that the duty of good faith applies to the performance of the contract, not to ensuring a commercially reasonable outcome, and that Ontario's compensation decisions were not commercially unreasonable in any event.

The alternative claim for unjust enrichment was also dismissed as the contract constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The plaintiffs brought motions for settlement approval and fee approval in several class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The court certified the actions against Yazaki and Chiyoda for settlement purposes.

The court approved settlements with Yazaki and Chiyoda totaling over $11 million, noting that class counsel provided supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amounts fell within the zone of reasonableness.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee request.

A class action brought by automobile dealers challenged a manufacturer’s 2009 wind‑down agreements issued during the global financial crisis, alleging breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing, disclosure obligations, and the right of association under franchise legislation.

The court held the manufacturer did not breach its contractual or statutory obligations in implementing the dealer reduction plan or issuing the agreements under urgent restructuring circumstances.

However, the law firm advising the dealer group was found to have breached fiduciary duties, contractual duties, and the standard of care by acting despite conflicts of interest and failing to properly advise the dealers during the restructuring process.

The court concluded that the lawyers’ misconduct deprived the dealers of a real opportunity to negotiate improved termination compensation.

Aggregate damages were therefore awarded for loss of that negotiation opportunity.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class proceeding on behalf of operators of Sears Hometown Stores who entered into standard Dealer Agreements with the defendants.

The claim alleged that the contractual arrangements constituted franchise relationships under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, triggering statutory disclosure obligations and a duty of fair dealing, and alternatively alleged breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment arising from the defendants’ compensation structures, advertising practices, and direct sales into dealers’ market areas.

The court applied the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and found that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, the proposed class was identifiable, and the claims raised common issues concerning the defendants’ standardized contractual practices and compensation structure.

The court further held that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure and that the proposed representative plaintiff was adequate despite not currently operating a store and lacking resources to satisfy potential costs awards.

The action was certified as a class proceeding with revised common issues.

In a class proceeding involving claims by automobile dealers, the plaintiff moved to add punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages as an additional common issue against a defendant law firm.

Although the proposed question concerning entitlement to punitive damages had some commonality, the court held that punitive damages could not be appropriately determined at the common issues stage because causation and compensatory damages had not been certified and would require individualized assessments.

The court emphasized the doctrinal link between compensatory damages and punitive damages and concluded that the degree of misconduct could not be meaningfully assessed until the defendant's liability and related third-party claims were resolved.

As a result, the proposed question was not a preferable procedure under s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Action Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion was dismissed, though the court noted that punitive damages could still be addressed later in the proceedings under the court’s broad management powers.

Two competing proposed class actions alleged an international price‑fixing conspiracy relating to rechargeable lithium‑ion batteries and related consumer electronic products.

Counsel in each action sought carriage of the class proceeding and a stay of the other action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court assessed factors including the scope of the claims, progress of the actions, proposed representative plaintiffs, class definitions, coordination with related proceedings, and the preparedness and strategic approach of counsel.

While both sets of counsel were experienced and many factors were neutral, the court found that the Shah action demonstrated a more proactive and coordinated approach, including earlier steps to refine the class definition, add defendants, obtain case management, and coordinate expert analysis.

The court concluded that awarding carriage to that action best advanced the interests of the proposed class.