Jean-Claude Rioux

The court reviewed the Claims Administration Report submitted by RicePoint Administration Inc. regarding the distribution of settlement funds in a class action.

The report detailed the distribution of $550,033.00, including payments to class counsel, the Class Proceeding Fund, the representative plaintiff, and 53 approved class members, with the residual balance directed to the Canadian Red Cross.

The court approved the report pursuant to s. 27.1(17) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The applicant sought an order validating an undated, unwitnessed fill-in-the-blanks document as the deceased's last will and testament under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent brother opposed, arguing the document was merely a draft and that his subsequent reconciliation with the deceased vitiated her intention to exclude him.

The court found the document represented the deceased's fixed and final testamentary intentions at the time it was made, and that a subsequent change in circumstances does not revoke a will.

The application was granted and the document was validated.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions for settlement purposes against three immigration lawyers.

The plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' representation of Roma refugee claimants from Hungary.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motions for certification were granted.

Corrigendum to a prior costs endorsement correcting arithmetic errors in the calculation of a costs award in a civil action.

The court adjusted the surveillance expense total and corrected the amount previously recorded in the endorsement.

The court also deducted a previously satisfied $1,000 costs order made by a Master.

As a result of these corrections, the supplementary costs endorsement amount was reduced.

Supplementary costs endorsement correcting disbursement and total costs figures in a prior costs decision.

The defendant advised that an expert invoice previously referenced should be replaced with a lower amount.

The court amended the disbursement total and the overall costs award accordingly to reflect the corrected invoice amount.

The decision adjusts the numerical totals in the earlier July 15, 2014 costs endorsement without altering the underlying entitlement to costs.

Third parties in a catastrophic personal injury action moved to set aside a defence filed on their behalf by their insurer’s counsel after the insurer mistakenly assumed the insured had been served with the third party claim.

In fact, the third party claim had never been personally served on the insured homeowner who had relocated abroad.

The court considered Rules 16.01(2), 1.04, 2.01, and 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that the deemed service rule should not apply where the defence was filed based on a mistaken assumption of service.

Emphasizing that procedural rules should not allow form to triumph over substance, the court set aside the defence and granted the defendant six months to attempt personal service of the third party claim.