Douglas Lennox

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.

The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.

These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.

The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.

This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.

Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.

RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.

The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.

This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.

Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.

The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.

The appellant, TELUS Communications Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision regarding the constitutional validity of the Wireless Services Agreement Act 2013 (WSAA) and a class action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the WSAA was within provincial legislative jurisdiction and was not rendered inoperative by paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's request to stay the class action for CRTC determination, confirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a $1 million settlement in a privacy class action against a technology company regarding the collection of cell phone data.

Because individual class members could not be identified, the settlement provided no direct compensation to the class, instead directing funds to a cy-près recipient (the Law Foundation) after payment of class counsel fees.

The court approved the settlement as the best possible outcome given the unmanageability of the class, but reduced class counsel's requested fees from $333,333 to $300,000 to reflect the lack of direct recovery for class members.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a wireless service provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds upon cancellation of services, relying on the provincial Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013.

The defendant brought a cross-motion arguing the provincial Act was ultra vires or inoperative due to federal jurisdiction over telecommunications.

The court held that the provincial Act was valid consumer protection legislation, and was not rendered inoperative by the doctrines of federal paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a telecommunications provider seeking pro-rated refunds for prepaid wireless services after cancelling her contract.

The plaintiff relied on a statutory cause of action under the Telecommunications Act, alleging the provider breached the CRTC's Wireless Code.

The provider brought a cross-motion to strike the claim.

The Superior Court granted the cross-motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was essentially for breach of contract, which is expressly excluded from the statutory cause of action by s. 72(3) of the Act.

Alternatively, the court held it would decline to exercise jurisdiction and defer to the CRTC, which has exclusive regulatory authority over the Wireless Code.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action against a telecommunications provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds to customers who cancelled their wireless service agreements.

The court denied certification for the national class claim under the Telecommunications Act, finding no viable cause of action.

However, the court granted certification for an Ontario subclass advancing claims under the Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013, finding that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and the common issues, including aggregate and punitive damages, were suitable for a class proceeding.

The plaintiff, Dwight Thompson, brought a motion on consent to discontinue a proposed class action against Bell Mobility Inc. Thompson had alleged that Bell Mobility charged illegal cancellation fees, contrary to the Telecommunications Act and the Wireless Services Agreements Act, by not providing pro-rata refunds for unused services paid in advance.

After discussions with Bell Mobility and reviewing his invoice, Thompson realized he had, in fact, received a pro-rata refund in the form of a credit.

He was also satisfied that Bell Mobility had revised its billing practices by the end of 2016 to comply with CRTC decisions requiring pro-rata refunds for other putative class members.

The court granted the motion to discontinue, finding no prejudice to the putative class members as the action had not been publicized and they were unaware of it.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent to certify a class action against the defendant technology company for settlement purposes.

The action alleges that the defendant intentionally invaded the privacy of Android phone users in Canada by accessing and collecting their location history without consent, constituting an intrusion upon seclusion.

The court found that the requirements under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting the identifiable class, common issues, and adequacy of the representative plaintiffs.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes and approved the notice of settlement hearing.

The plaintiff, Jooli Park, brought a motion for certification of a class action against Samyang Foods Co. for settlement purposes, approval of a settlement agreement with Samyang, dismissal of the action against the non-settling defendants (Nongshim, Ottogi, Korea Yakult, and Paldo), approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, payment of an honorarium to Park, and cy-près distribution of remaining settlement funds.

The court granted all requested relief except for the honorarium to Park, finding that her contributions were not exceptional enough to warrant it.

The settlement with Samyang was approved, and the action against the non-settling defendants was dismissed without costs, considering the increased litigation risks after an unsuccessful jury trial in a related US class action.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action moved to discontinue the action against Pfizer Canada Inc. and Pfizer Inc. The action alleged neuropsychiatric adverse events from the drug varenicline (CHAMPIX®).

The decision to discontinue followed the release of the EAGLES Study, which did not support the allegations of generic causation.

The defendants consented to discontinuance without costs.

The court approved the discontinuance under s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the action was brought in good faith, the discontinuance would not prejudice class members (who retain individual claims and receive notice), and it was appropriate for the Class Proceedings Fund to end its exposure to costs given the remote prospects of success.

The court approved a class action settlement concerning the Zimmer Durom Hip Implant, along with Class Counsel's fees and an honorarium for the Representative Plaintiff and a Class Member.

The settlement provides compensation for revised and medically precluded Class Members, with a claims-made structure and no cap on the defendants' liability.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite objections regarding the eligibility deadline for revision surgery.

The plaintiff sought certification of a products liability action concerning an allegedly defective hip implant as a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The defendants consented to certification.

The court considered the statutory criteria under s. 5(1), including the existence of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferability, and adequacy of the representative plaintiff.

The court noted parallel litigation in British Columbia concerning the same medical device and concluded that certification would protect the rights of class members who did not opt into the British Columbia action.

The court found all statutory criteria satisfied and certified the proceeding as a class action.

Two competing groups of plaintiffs brought carriage and stay motions regarding proposed class actions against Zimmer for allegedly defective hip implants.

The court considered the problematic of multiple class actions across Canada, including the differences between opt-in and opt-out regimes.

The court granted carriage to the McSherry action, which was coordinated with a certified British Columbia class action, and stayed the competing Mets, D'Anna, and Ducharme actions, finding this to be in the best interests of the class members.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed national class action alleging that a prescription smoking‑cessation drug caused neuropsychiatric adverse events and that the manufacturer breached its duty to warn consumers and physicians.

The court considered the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court held that there was some basis in fact for a duty to warn claim against the Canadian manufacturer based on expert and anecdotal evidence of adverse psychiatric events.

The proposed class definition and common issues were amended to focus on specific neuropsychiatric symptoms and the adequacy of product monograph warnings between 2007 and 2010.

The proceeding was certified against the Canadian manufacturer but not against the U.S. parent company, whose involvement lacked a factual basis.

In a proposed pharmaceutical products liability class action concerning alleged neuropsychiatric side effects of the smoking cessation drug Champix, the defendants brought a refusals motion seeking further production of medical and related records from proposed representative plaintiffs during cross‑examinations conducted for a certification motion.

The defendants argued the additional records were necessary to challenge whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and certification criteria.

The court accepted that the requested information had some relevance but held that the scope of cross‑examination on a certification motion is narrower than discovery and must comply with proportionality principles.

Given that the plaintiffs had already produced medical records and answered extensive questions, compelling further production would improperly extend the inquiry into the merits of the case and impose a disproportionate burden.

The motion to compel further answers and productions was therefore dismissed.