Ian Thompson

Three defendants each brought motions to compel the plaintiff railway company to answer questions refused on examination for discovery in an action arising from a 2020 train derailment involving a tanker car with a defective wheelset.

The court assessed relevance and proportionality of the requested questions, ordering the plaintiff to answer 4 of 12 questions sought by the railway manufacturer, 1 of 9 sought by the tanker car owner, and 3 of 4 sought by the shipper.

Costs followed the divided success, with the tanker car owner ordered to pay $5,000 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff ordered to pay $7,500 to the shipper.

The defendant brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the plaintiff's reply that referenced a Transportation Safety Board (TSB) investigation into a train derailment.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the paragraph.

The court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the proposed amendment did not meet the requirements for a reply, pleaded evidence rather than material facts, and was scandalous and prejudicial as it improperly implied wrongdoing based on the mere existence of a TSB investigation.

The plaintiff in a price-fixing class action sought approval of a settlement with the sole individual defendant.

The settlement provided no monetary compensation but required the defendant to provide extensive cooperation, including an evidentiary proffer, interviews, document exchange, and trial testimony.

The court approved the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, as the defendant's inside information offered significant strategic value against the remaining corporate defendants.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The applicant sought to stay the tax sale of his commercial condominium due to property tax arrears, claiming he was entitled to tax relief for sickness or extreme poverty.

The respondent municipality brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application based on a prior settlement agreement.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement to dismiss the application without costs.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's underlying claim for tax relief fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assessment Review Board, and the applicant failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

The application was dismissed.