Hesam Wafaei

The appellants, FedEx, appealed an order certifying a class proceeding brought by the respondent, who alleged FedEx charged undisclosed and unsolicited customs brokerage fees in breach of the Consumer Protection Act.

FedEx argued the claim disclosed no cause of action, lacked common issues, and had an overly broad class definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the systemic nature of the billing practices raised common issues, and the class definition appropriately included claims that might face limitation or jurisdictional defences, which are better addressed at trial.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action against FedEx, alleging undisclosed and unsolicited fees for customs clearance services (Advancement Fee and Clearance Entry Fee) in violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, a non-commercial purchaser, received an invoice for these fees after being promised "free shipping" believing them to be government levies.

The court found that the claim disclosed viable causes of action under the CPA, including unsolicited services and unfair practices, and unjust enrichment.

It rejected FedEx's arguments regarding agency, territorial reach of the CPA, and the sufficiency of website disclosures.

The court also found the proposed class identifiable, common issues present, and a class action to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the goals of judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The action was certified.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a costs order and a subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $15,000 to the responding parties.

The plaintiffs sought costs following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to vacate a Mareva injunction.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, alleging egregious conduct by the defendants, including a multi-year fraudulent scheme.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as the claims had not been finally adjudicated.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, including the costs of the initial motion made without notice, as those materials were necessary for the de novo hearing.

Costs were fixed at $200,000, payable within 30 days.

This is a costs endorsement following successful motions by the State of California and the Attorney General of Quebec to dismiss claims brought against them by W.O. Stinson & Son Limited.

The court had previously dismissed Stinson's claim against California based on state immunity under the State Immunity Act and against Quebec due to Crown immunity.

Stinson argued for no costs, citing unfair treatment due to the cancellation of Ontario's cap-and-trade program and alleged profit by California and Quebec from Stinson's losses.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no reason to deny costs to the successful parties.

The court then assessed the reasonableness of the requested partial indemnity costs, reducing the amounts sought by both California and Quebec, and specifically reducing Quebec's expert witness disbursement.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which had previously dismissed both the appellant's appeal and the respondents' cross-appeal.

The Court determined the costs payable, awarding the primary respondents $50,000 from the appellant, despite the respondents seeking over $71,000 and the appellant proposing $40,000.

The Court was not persuaded by the appellant's public interest argument or the relevance of costs awarded in a comparable case that were based on party agreement.

Additionally, the Law Foundation of Ontario, which responded to the cross-appeal, was awarded $10,000 in costs from the primary respondents.

The appellant, John Peters, appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to bring a statutory cause of action under the Securities Act for alleged failure to disclose a material change, and for class action certification.

The alleged material change was a September 4, 2018, telephone call where the PPSC advised SNC-Lavalin that it would not be invited to negotiate a remediation agreement.

The motion judge found no reasonable possibility that the call constituted a "change" in SNC's business, operations, or capital.

SNC-Lavalin cross-appealed the costs order, which reduced their costs due to the case's legal novelty and public interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, affirming the motion judge's interpretation of "material change" and application of the leave test, and the cross-appeal, upholding the discretionary costs decision.