Glyn Hotz

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a class action for delay pursuant to section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff had issued a Notice of Action in September 2020 and a Statement of Claim in October 2020, serving it in March 2021.

However, since serving the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff's counsel had taken no steps to advance the action, nor had they communicated with the defendants' counsel or responded to the dismissal motion.

The court found that none of the statutory requirements for advancing the proceeding (such as filing a certification record or agreeing to a timetable) had been met by the first anniversary of the proceeding's commencement.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action for delay, also dispensing with the requirement for public notice of dismissal due to the existence of a parallel class action with similar claims.

The defendants brought a motion to quash several summonses issued by the plaintiff to employees and a former employee of Georgian College.

The plaintiff sought to examine these witnesses in advance of her motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction regarding a hiring process for an Associate Dean position.

The court quashed the summonses for the non-party witnesses, finding the request to be a fishing expedition that failed to meet the requirements of Rule 39.03.

However, the court permitted the examination of two named defendants, subject to the condition that they could not be examined again for discovery without leave of the court.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion in writing to approve the dismissal of a putative class proceeding against Facebook and Google on a without costs basis.

The action alleged that Facebook scraped call and text logs from users of the Messenger app on Android devices.

Following the denial of certification in a parallel British Columbia action, the representative plaintiffs no longer wished to proceed due to the risk of adverse costs.

The court approved the dismissal, finding it was not brought for an improper purpose, no private benefit was received to the detriment of class members, and notice to the class was unnecessary.

The plaintiff class sought approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and honoraria for the representative plaintiff and another class member following a settlement in a privacy class action against SiriusXM.

The court approved the requested $75,000 in class counsel fees, finding them fair and reasonable given the risk undertaken and the time expended.

The court also approved $5,000 honoraria for the two class members due to their active involvement and exposure to costs risks.

However, the court reduced the requested disbursements from $75,000 to $55,657.36, rejecting class counsel's attempt to claim firm overhead as a disbursement.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $240 billion class action regarding a data breach, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be limited to a partial indemnity scale for a pleadings motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct against defence counsel, combined with their egregious violations of pleading rules and massive expansion of the claim, justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded $725,000 to Capital One and $500,000 to Amazon Web.

The plaintiff sought court approval to dismiss his proposed class action regarding the recalled drug Valsartan.

Following a carriage agreement with another class action and discovering that one defendant did not manufacture the active ingredient, the plaintiff sought to dismiss the action against all defendants without costs.

The court approved the dismissal under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding no prejudice to putative class members as other actions were proceeding across Canada.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a $240 billion class action against a financial institution and a cloud storage provider following a massive data breach perpetrated by a former employee of the storage provider.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence, and negligence, arguing that the defendants misappropriated and misused the class members' personal information by retaining and aggregating it beyond its initial purpose.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim egregiously contravened the rules of pleading and failed to disclose any legally viable causes of action against the corporate defendants.

The pleading was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court reconsidered a previous costs award of $112,500 made against the plaintiffs following the dismissal of their refusals and interlocutory injunction motions in a proposed class action regarding a data breach.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs claim reflected over-lawyering and sought costs in the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' submissions, finding their motions were unnecessary, overreaching, and deplorably prosecuted.

The court confirmed the original partial indemnity costs award of $112,500 and awarded an additional $12,500 for the costs submissions, for a total of $125,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a settlement in a class proceeding against SiriusXM regarding the alleged unlawful collection and use of personal information from vehicle purchasers.

The proposed settlement provided for a $150,000 cy-près payment to the Automobile Protection Association to fund a privacy best practices report, with no direct compensation to class members.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the significant risks in the litigation, including the lack of evidence of actual harm or data breach, and the strong defences available to the defendants.

The settlement was approved.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval to settle and discontinue their claims against the defendant GitHub.

GitHub, an American corporation, had challenged the court's jurisdiction.

After an initial adjournment to address jurisdictional concerns, the plaintiffs submitted revised materials.

The court approved the settlement, finding that discontinuing the action against GitHub was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the litigation risks, costs, and the fact that the remaining defendants had sufficient financial strength to meet any damages.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought unsuccessful motions for an injunction and for refusals.

The Capital One defendants sought costs of $135,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued they should be awarded costs despite losing, claiming they achieved their objective.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding their motions were ill-advised and meritless.

Costs were awarded to the Capital One defendants in the amount of $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes only.

The action alleged that the defendants improperly collected and used the personal information of individuals who purchased or leased vehicles equipped with satellite radios.

The court reviewed the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there was an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion was granted and the action was certified for settlement purposes.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The court issued a costs decision in an exceptional case following a carriage motion in a class action.

The Slapinski Action Consortium, though unsuccessful in the carriage motion, sought costs against the Del Giudice Action Consortium's counsel for non-compliance with a case management direction regarding simultaneous exchange of motion materials.

The court found that the Del Giudice Action Consortium's failure to comply with the simultaneous exchange rule prejudiced the court's ability to fairly decide the carriage contest, constituting a default under Rule 57.07.

Despite the Del Giudice Action Consortium's success on the carriage motion, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $42,907 to the Slapinski Action Consortium, to be paid personally by the Del Giudice Action Consortium's counsel.

The Representative Plaintiffs in a certified class action sought leave to dismiss the action due to a lack of reasonable prospect of success after an expert report undermined their case.

The Defendants did not oppose the dismissal but sought substantial partial indemnity costs for a withdrawn summary judgment motion and for defending the class action.

The Class Proceedings Fund, responsible for adverse costs, argued the Defendants' costs claim was excessive.

The court granted leave to dismiss the action and awarded the Defendants $300,000 in total partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the $750,025.31 sought by the Defendants but more than the $65,000 proposed by the Fund.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were awarded a forfeited $60,000 real estate deposit, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought $45,676.40 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for no costs.

Considering the plaintiffs' multiple unaccepted offers to settle, the defendants' discontinued $500,000 counterclaim, and the disproportionate litigation conduct by both sides, the court fixed costs at $25,000 payable to the plaintiffs.