Glenn A. Smith

The plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement with certain defendants, class counsel fees and disbursements, and honorariums for the representative plaintiffs.

The settlement amount was $37 million.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, including dissolved corporate entities and limitations issues.

The court also approved the 30% contingency fee for class counsel and $50,000 honorariums for each representative plaintiff, recognizing their exceptional involvement and exposure to costs.

The moving party sought to set aside an administrative dismissal of his appeal for delay.

The appeal arose from a motion to change child and spousal support in a long-running family law matter.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion to change due to the moving party's failure to produce required financial disclosure and lack of demonstrated material change in circumstances.

The moving party failed to perfect his appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal was administratively dismissed.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding weak grounds of appeal, inadequate explanation for failure to perfect, unjustified delay in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the respondent.

The tenant brought an urgent motion seeking relief from forfeiture after the landlord terminated a commercial lease and re-entered the premises due to substantial rent arrears.

The tenant had ceased paying rent for several months and significant arrears had accumulated, though the tenant alleged the premises had serious deficiencies and that the parties had been engaged in ongoing lease renegotiations.

The court applied the equitable principles governing relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act and Courts of Justice Act, considering the tenant’s conduct, the gravity of the breach, and the surrounding circumstances.

Although the tenant’s failure to pay rent weighed against relief, the court granted interim relief from forfeiture on strict terms requiring substantial payment of rent arrears and ongoing compliance with the lease.

The matter was adjourned for further determination on whether the relief should continue on an interlocutory basis pending trial.

The plaintiffs sought indemnity under an executive liability insurance policy for losses arising from litigation alleging wrongful acts connected to a corporate subsidiary.

The insurer argued that a specific entity exclusion and coordination-of-limits endorsement limited or eliminated coverage and that payments under a separate run‑off policy should be set off against the policy limits.

The court examined the surrounding negotiations and the wording of the policies, including the meaning of the term “claim,” and found the exclusion did not remove coverage for directors acting in their capacity as directors of the parent corporation.

The court also held that the coordination-of-limits endorsement was not triggered because the two policies covered different wrongful acts committed in different capacities.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs for the full policy limits.