Emily Assini

The representative plaintiffs sought approval of a settlement in a class action against General Motors regarding incorrect fuel economy stickers on certain 2016 model year vehicles.

The settlement provided class members with either a cash payment equivalent to a prior voluntary compensation program or a $2,000 voucher for a new vehicle.

The court found the settlement, negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved it along with class counsel fees of $175,000.

The plaintiff, a commercial corn grower, brought a proposed class action against the defendants, manufacturers of genetically modified corn seeds (Agrisure), alleging negligence and breach of the Competition Act.

The plaintiff claimed that North American corn prices fell due to China's rejection of corn shipments containing unapproved Agrisure, causing economic loss to non-Agrisure farmers.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing no duty of care existed for pure economic loss.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the claim was framed in misrepresentation, the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' alleged undertaking not to introduce Agrisure without global approvals was unreasonable, as commingling was inevitable and preventing it would require withholding the product from the domestic market, which had regulatory approval.

The court also noted the risk of indeterminate liability and the illogical elevation of foreign approvals over domestic ones.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the manufacturers of Cook IVC filters, alleging negligent design and failure to warn of risks associated with the medical devices.

The court dismissed the certification motion.

While the plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class and representative plaintiff criteria, and pleaded a valid cause of action for failure to warn, they failed to plead a valid cause of action for design negligence.

Crucially, the court found no 'some basis in fact' for the existence of any common issues regarding either design defect or duty to warn, as the evidence did not identify a specific design defect or inadequacy in the warnings provided to physicians.

Consequently, the preferable procedure criterion was also not met.

This is a proposed class action seeking certification against Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. regarding allegedly defective Galaxy Note7, S7, and S7 Edge smartphones.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation, breach of consumer protection and sale of goods acts, negligence, unjust enrichment, and waiver of tort, claiming inadequate compensation for losses from a recall program.

The court dismissed the motion for certification, finding that the misrepresentation and statutory claims lacked contractual privity between the manufacturer and consumers, and were inadequately pleaded.

Claims for data loss and pain and suffering were deemed highly individualized, lacking commonality.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's expert failed to establish a credible methodology for class-wide damages.

The court concluded that a class action was not the preferable procedure, given Samsung's voluntary compensation program which addressed access to justice and behaviour modification concerns.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a Small Claims Court decision where it had claimed $7,551.12 but was only awarded $1,500.

The issue was whether the plaintiff had an automatic right of appeal under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act, given that the judgment amount was below the $2,500 threshold prescribed by regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the right of appeal is determined by the amount claimed in the action, not the amount recovered.

Finding a conflict between the statute and the regulation, the court ruled the statute prevails, confirming the plaintiff's right of appeal without leave.