Emilie Elizabeth McLachlan Maxwell

This appeal concerns the applicable test for determining jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants (AFCs) in a class action involving allegations of conspiracy to fix prices of air freight shipping services for shipments from or to Canada between 2000 and 2006.

The motion judge had rejected the real and substantial connection test and held that jurisdiction could only be established if AFCs were present in Ontario or had consented to the court's jurisdiction.

The motion judge also declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the real and substantial connection test applies to class actions involving AFCs and that jurisdiction may be established where there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter and Ontario, common issues exist between representative plaintiffs and AFCs, and procedural safeguards of adequate representation, notice, and opt-out rights are provided.

The court also found that forum non conveniens did not apply as no clearly more appropriate forum existed.

The court approved a $2.1 billion class action settlement for Canadian owners and lessees of VW 2.0-litre diesel vehicles affected by the "defeat device" fraud.

The settlement provides cash payments and options for vehicle buyback or emissions modification, with the buyback option generally offering a larger recovery.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, exceeding what members would likely recover under provincial consumer protection legislation or tort law.

The appellants commenced a proposed class action for damages for misrepresentations in a takeover bid circular under s. 131(1) of the Securities Act.

The motion judge ruled that plaintiffs must elect whether to sue the offeror or its directors/signatories, and that secondary market sellers could not rely on s. 131(1).

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that s. 131(1) allows a plaintiff to sue both the offeror and its directors/signatories for damages.

However, the Court upheld the ruling that secondary market sellers cannot assert a claim under s. 131(1), as they must rely on the statutory cause of action in Part XXIII.1.

The respondents were successful on a motion for leave to appeal and the subsequent appeal.

They sought costs of $82,692.85 for the leave motion and $108,534.16 for the appeal.

The appellant argued the amounts were excessive and sought its own costs for the leave motion.

The Divisional Court found the respondents' claimed costs excessive given the focused nature of the issues and the number of hours docketed.

The court fixed costs payable to the respondents at $120,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

In a securities class action concerning alleged misrepresentations in the prospectus and offering materials for a company’s 2010 initial public offering, the representative plaintiff moved for court approval of a settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement provided for a global payment of USD $15,250,000 to resolve claims by Canadian and U.S. investors, with a coordinated cross‑border approval process and a shared claims administration.

The court applied the established criteria for approval of class action settlements, including the likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel’s recommendations, the reasonableness of the terms, and the absence of objections.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved both the settlement and the plan of allocation, as well as class counsel’s requested contingency fees and litigation expenses.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding customs brokerage fees charged on international shipments.

The core issue for the leave motion was whether the motion judge erred in certifying as a common issue whether the brokerage services were 'unsolicited services' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, without considering the consignees' knowledge or consent.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that consumer knowledge is irrelevant under section 13 of the Act, and noting that the issue is a matter of public importance.