Derek Ricci

The plaintiff brought motions for approval of a settlement agreement, a discretionary fund, class counsel fees, and a notice program in a class action concerning allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implants.

The court approved the claims-made settlement and the $750,000 discretionary fund, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks.

The court also approved a 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $1.25 million contribution from the defendants towards fees and disbursements.

However, the court dismissed the representative plaintiff's request for a $7,500 honorarium, finding no exceptional circumstances of personal hardship.

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 applicant brought an ex parte initial application for an interim order relating to a proposed plan of arrangement under the Business Corporations Act.

The court granted the interim order but issued this endorsement to provide directions to the bar regarding the information that should be included in factums for such applications.

The court emphasized that while the purpose of an interim motion is not to assess the ultimate fairness of the plan, the court still requires concrete qualitative and quantitative explanations of fairness to determine appropriate terms of service and meeting parameters.

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 applicant applied for an order to resolve an insurance policy dispute by arbitration at JAMS offices in Toronto.

The respondent argued that the arbitration should be conducted under the English Arbitration Act and that the applicant had not properly commenced the arbitration.

The court found that its jurisdiction to intervene only arises if there is a failure of the parties to agree on the appointment procedure.

Since the applicant had not followed the agreed procedure by making a proper written request and appointing its arbitrator, the court declined to intervene and dismissed the application.

The appellant purchased properties and executed vendor take back mortgages and a development agreement, paying land transfer tax on the total amount including the development milestones.

The development milestones were never met, the agreement was terminated, and the mortgages were discharged.

The appellant sought a refund of the land transfer tax paid on the development amounts.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the obligations under the development agreement formed an integral part of the consideration given on closing, and the contingent nature of the liability did not exclude it from the value of consideration under the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Following the successful certification of a class action concerning metal-on-metal hip implants, the plaintiff sought costs of $584,288 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied its established approach to certification costs, reducing the hourly rates to comply with the Rules Committee Grid.

The court further reduced the fees by 50 percent because class counsel spent an inordinate amount of time unnecessarily litigating the merits of the action.

Disbursements were also reduced, as an expensive expert report was deemed not essential for certification.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $200,000 payable forthwith and $65,000 in the cause.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging that large‑head metal‑on‑metal hip implants designed and distributed by the defendants were defective and caused injury.

The defendants contested certification primarily on the basis that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court applied the “some basis in fact” standard under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of product defect and class‑wide commonality to support most proposed common issues.

The court found that negligence, duty of care, breach of standard of care, medical monitoring costs, and punitive damages issues could proceed on a class‑wide basis, subject to certain amendments.

The action was certified as a class proceeding with most proposed common issues approved.

In a proposed class action concerning allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implants, the defendants brought a motion for the pre-certification production of the representative plaintiff's medical records.

The court formulated a clear rule for Ontario that pre-certification production of medical records will only be ordered if the defendant can show the documentation is relevant to one or more of the certification requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court dismissed the defendants' broad request for all hip-related medical records as irrelevant to the certification issues, but granted a narrow request for records identifying the specific products implanted, as this was relevant to the plaintiff's suitability as a representative plaintiff.

In a securities class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act, the plaintiffs sought certification for settlement purposes against certain underwriters, approval of three settlements totalling approximately $10.85 million, approval of counsel fees, and approval of a proposed plan of allocation.

The court held that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved them, along with counsel fees and the appointment of an administrator.

However, the court rejected the parties’ proposed distribution plan because it excluded class members who purchased shares on the day of the corrective disclosure from any compensation.

Exercising its authority to determine the plan of allocation, the court varied the distribution plan to include those purchasers and approved the modified plan as fair and reasonable.

Following the dismissal of actions and the granting of summary judgment to casino operators and a gaming regulator, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed approximately $14 million alleging illegality in casino roulette operations and unjust enrichment.

The court held that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, rejecting claims for substantial indemnity and also declining the plaintiffs’ submission that no costs should be awarded due to alleged illegality.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and appellate guidance on reasonable and proportionate costs, the court fixed reduced lump-sum costs awards.

The casino defendants were awarded $110,000 and the regulator $60,000.

Multiple plaintiffs who were high-limit roulette players alleged that a casino operated illegal roulette games by allowing dealers to remove “floating balls” before they landed in a numbered slot, contrary to approved rules of play under Ontario gaming regulations.

They sought $7.5 million in damages and restitution of approximately $2.1 million lost gambling, asserting tort, contract, statutory misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the actions and enforcing unpaid gambling loans.

The court held that even if the “floating ball” practice was not an approved rule of play and could have rendered certain spins unlawful, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the casino returned all wagers whenever a spin was stopped, meaning there was no enrichment and no corresponding deprivation.

With no viable damages evidence and no triable issues, summary judgment was granted and the defendants also succeeded on their collection counterclaims.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario against Russian defendants and attempted to serve them in Russia pursuant to the Hague Service Convention.

The Russian Ministry of Justice refused to facilitate service, citing sovereignty or security concerns under Article 13 of the Convention.

The plaintiffs obtained an order from a Master validating service under Rule 16.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants appealed.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 17.05(3) implements the Convention's exclusive methods for service in a contracting state, precluding the application of Rules 16.04 and 16.08 to substitute or validate service.