Class counsel appealed a motion judge's order fixing their fees at $14.5 million instead of the requested $27.5 million following the settlement of a class action regarding payday loans.
The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge did not err in applying section 32(4) rather than the base fee/multiplier approach in section 33(7) of the Class Proceedings Act, as the fee agreement was not approved by the court.
The Court also upheld the motion judge's decision to treat the fees of consultants and other lawyers retained on a contingency basis as disbursements.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the representative plaintiff's $3,000 compensation should be paid out of the settlement fund rather than out of class counsel fees.
