Eric Stanger

A case conference was convened at the request of a class member and a defendant to address concerns regarding the distribution of settlement funds in a class action.

The class member raised concerns about an apparent double payment to the representative plaintiff, which the Administrator confirmed was a clerical error that had been reversed.

The defendant raised concerns about a discrepancy in class counsel fees, which the court clarified was due to the inclusion of HST in the final approved amount.

The court was satisfied that the settlement funds had been distributed correctly and no further adjustments were required.

The parties attended a case conference to settle the terms of the orders approving a class action settlement and distribution protocol.

The court approved the draft orders with minor modifications, including pluralizing references to the Canderm defendants and adjusting the notice period.

The court declined to award costs of the Ontario action to Canderm, noting the action was stayed due to the settlement with the other defendants.

The court also addressed concerns raised by a class member regarding the claims administrator's handling of her income loss claim, directing the administrator to be flexible and objective in assessing evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a proposed $250,000 settlement with the settling defendants in a class action concerning adverse reactions to a cosmetic injectable filler.

The court found the settlement amount modest but reasonable given the small class size and litigation risks, provided the maximum compensation for income loss was increased from $5,000 to $20,000.

Class counsel fees were approved with a $20,000 reduction.

The action against the non-settling defendant was permanently stayed in Ontario, and procedural protections were added to the bar order.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded against the plaintiff for late service of a factum.

The plaintiff brought a motion to finalize the terms of a certification order for settlement purposes and to set a timetable for a settlement approval hearing.

A non-settling defendant, Canderm Pharma Inc., objected to the form of the order, identifying several clerical errors.

The court agreed that the errors should be corrected before the order was issued, despite the plaintiff's concern about maintaining parallel language with a British Columbia order.

The court finalized the terms, set the timetable, and declined to award costs to any party.