Donald B. Houston

In a proposed national class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 to compel pre-certification discovery from a non-party, Bloomberg LP.

The defendants brought a motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from taking any steps in furtherance of the subpoena without authorization from the Ontario court.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had circumvented Ontario's rules and jurisprudence regarding the discovery of non-parties and pre-certification discovery in class actions.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to control its own process and regulate the examination of non-parties for an Ontario action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve class action settlements with the Sumitomo and GS Electech defendants regarding alleged price-fixing of automotive wire harness systems, electronic control units, and heating control panels.

The court found the settlements, totaling $11 million for Sumitomo and $120,000 for GS Electech, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness compared to U.S. settlements and potential damages.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

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.

In a national class action alleging price fixing in the Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) market, the representative plaintiff sought approval of multiple settlement agreements with several defendant manufacturers under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed settlements totalled $3,050,000 and followed earlier settlements with other defendants.

The court considered whether the agreements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and reviewed the proposed distribution protocol, administration protocol, claims administrator appointment, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honorarium.

The court approved the settlements, associated distribution and administration plans, class counsel fees and disbursements, and dismissed the remaining claim against the final defendant.

The court accepted the settlements as falling within the zone of reasonableness and consistent with the interests of the class.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed national class action alleged that multiple manufacturers conspired to fix prices of polyurethane foam and carpet underlay products.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of several negotiated settlement agreements with numerous defendants totaling approximately $29.28 million for the benefit of the class, along with cooperation provisions to assist claims against remaining defendants.

An objector argued that the settlements should not be approved until a distribution protocol and damages analysis were finalized.

The court held that settlement approval can properly occur before approval of a distribution protocol and that the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the complexity, litigation risk, and absence of meaningful objections.

The settlements were therefore approved.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against the Toshiba and Etron defendants in a price-fixing case involving the SRAM industry.

The parties reached settlement agreements wherein Toshiba agreed to pay $475,000 and Etron agreed to pay $150,000.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motion for certification was granted, and the proposed notices of hearings were approved.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the Commissioner of Competition to provide further particulars of alleged misleading representations pleaded under paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Competition Act concerning premium text messaging services.

The defendants argued that the statement of claim failed to identify the specific alleged misrepresentations and related details necessary to prepare their defences.

The court held that the pleading sufficiently described the alleged deceptive marketing practices and that the requested particulars largely sought evidentiary details, which are properly obtained through discovery rather than particulars.

Given that the alleged representations could number in the hundreds or more and concerned matters within the defendants’ knowledge, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the request for further particulars.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a price‑fixing class action for settlement purposes against certain chocolate manufacturers and approval of a settlement with one defendant.

The action alleged a conspiracy to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of chocolate confectionery products in Canada, contrary to competition law.

The court considered the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and approved certification for settlement purposes, noting that common issues and preferable procedure criteria were satisfied.

The court further approved a $5.3 million settlement with the settling defendant, including cooperation provisions and a most‑favoured‑nation clause, finding the compromise fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

An interim class counsel fee award of $800,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax was approved, subject to possible adjustment depending on future settlements.

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 appellants appealed an order refusing to enjoin the respondents from pursuing a motion in the United States to access testimony and documents obtained through the US discovery process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no comity concerns or overriding policy issues that would warrant an injunction.

The Court held that the respondents were legitimately attempting to gather evidence in a foreign jurisdiction according to its rules, and that the US judge was in the best position to determine whether and how to vary the protective order.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from seeking access to discovery evidence in parallel U.S. anti-trust litigation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent Ontario's discovery rules by obtaining discovery in the U.S. before certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were merely seeking passive access to evidence already discovered in the U.S. litigation, rather than actively conducting discovery.

The court held that such evidence gathering does not offend Ontario's discovery rules or the implied undertaking rule, and that the U.S. court should determine whether to grant access under its own protective order.

The applicant union alleged a sale of business from Greenberg Stores Ltd. to Saan Stores Ltd. following Greenberg's bankruptcy, or alternatively sought a related employer declaration against Gendis Inc., Greenberg, and Saan.

The Board found no sale of business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was no evidence Saan used Greenberg's acquired trademarks to operate its new store.

While the Board found the entities met the criteria for related businesses under section 1(4), it declined to exercise its discretion to make a declaration.

The Board concluded the union's bargaining rights were lost due to Greenberg's legitimate economic failure, not artificial corporate manipulation.

Following the release of the main judgment dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal issued an addendum to clarify the costs award.

The court upheld the motions judge's decision to award the individual defendants their costs against both plaintiffs, as the individual defendants had been improperly joined in the action.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing most of their claims against magazine publishers and a distributor for conspiracy to injure, conspiracy to unduly lessen competition, wrongful interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, and breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that there was some evidence of a common design or agreement among the corporate defendants to injure the appellants or unduly lessen competition, requiring a trial for the conspiracy and wrongful interference claims.

The appeal regarding the breach of contract and inducing breach of contract claims was dismissed, as the contract was terminated in accordance with its unambiguous terms.

The appellant, a former bank manager in the Bahamas, was called as a Crown witness in a Canadian income tax prosecution.

He refused to testify about specific bank customers and transactions, arguing that doing so would subject him to criminal prosecution under Bahamian bank secrecy laws and violate his rights under section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was a compellable witness and that section 7 of the Charter did not apply, as any deprivation of liberty would result from the operation of foreign law, not Canadian law.

The appeal was dismissed.

Three black complainants alleged they were discriminated against at a public golf course when the starter added a fourth person to their group and a dispute ensued.

The golf pro intervened, called the police, and allegedly used racial slurs while refunding their money and asking them to leave.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the complainants were genuinely embarrassed and felt discriminated against, the actions of the golf course staff were motivated by enforcing course rules regarding group sizes on busy days, not by race or colour.

The complaints were dismissed.