Emily Dubis

The plaintiffs in a Quebec class action and the defendants brought motions to stay a parallel Ontario class action alleging securities misrepresentations.

The moving parties argued the Ontario action was duplicative and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario action was more comprehensive and not duplicative of the Quebec action when it was filed.

The court held that issues of preferability between parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions are better addressed at the certification stage rather than through a pre-certification stay motion for abuse of process.

The representative plaintiff, a Tim Hortons franchisee, and the defendant franchisor sought approval of a settlement agreement in two companion class actions concerning the use of an Ad Fund and the formation of a franchisee association.

The motion also sought approval of class counsel fees and litigation funding agreement amounts.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite one objector's concerns.

The settlement included monetary payments for marketing initiatives, legal costs, and significant non-monetary benefits such as enhanced transparency, audit rights, and freedom for franchisees to negotiate contracts.

The court also approved the requested fees for the litigation funder and class counsel, deeming them reasonable given the overall settlement value.

The representative plaintiff in two companion class actions against the Tim Hortons franchisor sought approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included a $10 million payment toward local marketing initiatives, $2 million for legal costs, and significant non-monetary benefits valued at over $25 million, including governance changes and the revocation of restrictive clauses.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it achieved access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification.

The court also approved the fee requests for the litigation funder and class counsel, finding them to be within a zone of reasonableness.

The defendant/moving party, TDL Group Corp., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's/responding party's Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff, 6646107 Canada Inc., alleged breach of the original Franchise Agreement, breach of a subsequent oral "Renewal Agreement," and negligent/intentional misrepresentation regarding the non-renewal of its Tim Hortons franchise.

The court granted the motion in part, striking claims related to the breach of the original Franchise Agreement due to explicit non-renewal clauses and the absence of a free-standing duty of good faith.

However, the court dismissed the motion to strike claims concerning the oral Renewal Agreement and negligent/intentional misrepresentation, finding these issues involved mixed fact and law and were not plain and obvious to fail.

The plaintiff, a Tim Hortons franchisee, brought motions for certification of two class actions against the franchisor, The TDL Group Corp., for the purposes of a tentative settlement.

The first action concerned the use of the Ad Fund, and the second concerned the formation of a franchisee association.

The defendant consented to certification.

The court applied the criteria under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, noting that the requirements need not be as rigorously applied in a settlement context.

All five certification requirements were found to be met, including disclosure of a cause of action, identifiable classes (current and former franchisees), common issues, preferability of a class proceeding, and an adequate representative plaintiff with a litigation and notice plan.

The court ordered certification of both actions as class proceedings.

The plaintiffs, Tim Hortons franchisees, brought a motion for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Galactic TH Litigation Funders LC in their proposed class action against the franchisor.

The court applied the multi-part test from Houle, finding the agreement necessary for access to justice, substantively meaningful, fair and reasonable, and protective of the defendant's interests.

The court also found the funder would not be overcompensated.

The funding agreement and budget were approved.