Davit Darcy Michael Akman

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding packaged bread sought court approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Bentham.

The defendants largely did not object, except regarding a clause allowing Bentham to satisfy any security for costs order via an undertaking rather than paying into court.

The court found the funding agreement necessary for access to justice, fair and reasonable to the class, and approved the agreement, including the provision allowing an undertaking for security for costs.

The Immunity Applicant Witnesses sought a declaration of informer privilege in an ongoing Competition Act inquiry into alleged price-fixing.

The Commissioner of Competition opposed, arguing that applying informer privilege would compromise the operation of the Immunity Program.

The court found that informer privilege attached to the witnesses from the outset of their participation in the Immunity Program due to broad confidentiality assurances.

However, the court also concluded that the witnesses had made a clear, express, and informed future waiver of this privilege, effective only if and when they are called to testify at a trial.

The application for informer privilege was granted, but with the condition of future waiver for trial testimony.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded him damages for constructive dismissal but dismissed his claims for aggravated damages, punitive damages, and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from workplace verbal abuse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the employer's conduct, while creating a poisoned work environment, did not rise to the level required for additional damages.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's costs award was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a bar order in a class proceeding.

They argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction under ss. 12 and 13 of the Class Proceedings Act to make the order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bar order appropriately limited the plaintiff's claim against non-settling defendants to their proportionate liability, in accordance with established principles.

The appellant newspaper sought intervenor status to challenge sealing and protective orders made in respect of material filed on a motion for a Mareva injunction against the respondents.

The motion judge dismissed the newspaper's motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant the newspaper intervenor status, failing to give sufficient weight to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.

The Court set aside the order, granted the newspaper intervenor status for the limited purpose of challenging the protective order, and remitted the balance of the motion to the Superior Court for a new hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order directing the receiver to file a Payments Report detailing distributions made by the insolvent companies.

The applicant argued the report could prejudice his ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the receiver's duty is to the economic interests of the estate's stakeholders, not to protect a stakeholder's personal interest in avoiding prejudice in foreign criminal proceedings.

The proposed appeal was found to lack prima facie merit.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash summonses issued by the Commissioner of the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, arguing the inquiry had unconstitutionally evolved into a criminal investigation into specific individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the inquiry's dominant purpose was to investigate municipal good government under section 100 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that the Commissioner was acting within her mandate by investigating potential misconduct as part of a broader fact-finding process, and that the incidental overlap with potential criminal matters did not render the inquiry ultra vires.