3 total
The court approved a $37 million class action settlement regarding a tax shelter scheme, along with class counsel fees and representative plaintiff honorariums.
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.
Appeal dismissed; de novo hearing before the Board cured any procedural fairness defects regarding notice.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of its licence to operate a long-term care home.
The appellant argued that the revocation order was issued without notice, breaching procedural fairness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing before the Board was a hearing de novo, which cured any prior procedural defects regarding notice.
The court also noted that any prejudice suffered by the appellant stemmed from the appointment of an interim manager, an order the appellant chose not to appeal.
Gift finding defeated resulting trust, but later consent created a trust.
The applicants sought a declaration that residential property registered in their adult son's name was beneficially theirs, relying primarily on resulting trust and alternatively on express trust, unjust enrichment, and adverse possession.
The court held that the presumption of resulting trust arising from the gratuitous 1990 transfer was rebutted on the evidence, finding that a gift to the son was more plausible than a bare trustee arrangement and rejecting the current denials of gifting intention as unreliable.
However, the court found that the son's 2014 affidavits and consent created an express trust in favour of the applicants from August 20, 2014 onward.
Title was vested in the applicants subject to enforcement of the former spouse's registered family law judgment to the extent outstanding as of that date, with no costs awarded.
