Jean-Marc Leclerc

Motion to certify a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act arising from a cybersecurity breach at Investorcom Holdings ULC affecting personal information held by Mackenzie Financial Corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of contract, and fiduciary duty by both defendants in failing to adequately secure sensitive personal information including social insurance numbers.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding the pleadings disclosed plausible causes of action in negligence, contract, and fiduciary duty.

The court declined to certify claims under provincial privacy statutes due to jurisdictional limitations and the requirement of willful conduct, but permitted reliance on such statutes as material facts.

The court certified a national class proceeding without carving out members from other provinces, pending the outcome of a parallel British Columbia class action.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by Denver Davis from two orders: one staying a proposed class action against Amazon in favour of arbitration, and the other dismissing the motion for certification of the class action.

The class action alleged Amazon was liable for breach of employment contracts, breach of good faith, unjust enrichment, and negligence, and sought damages on behalf of approximately 73,000 delivery workers.

The court held that the motion judge did not err in finding that Amazon was not a common employer of the delivery associates (DAs) employed by third-party logistics companies, and that the requirements for certification were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ticketmaster regarding its secondary ticket market practices.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ticketmaster knowingly facilitated or turned a blind eye to professional resellers using bots and multiple accounts to bypass primary market ticket limits, contrary to its Terms of Use and Purchase Policy.

The court certified the class action for claims of breach of contract, breach of ticketing legislation, unlawful means conspiracy, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court found that the claims under the Competition Act and consumer protection legislation did not disclose a cause of action because the plaintiffs failed to plead a sufficient causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and their damages.

The court also dismissed Ticketmaster's motion to strike the plaintiffs' expert reports, finding them admissible and relevant to establishing a methodology for calculating aggregate damages.

In a proposed employment law class action, Amazon successfully resisted certification and obtained a stay for certain claims.

Amazon sought approximately $2.0 million in costs, while the plaintiff, Denver Davis, argued for an award of around $400,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and access to justice in class proceedings, awarded Amazon costs on a partial indemnity basis of $750,000, finding both parties' requested amounts to be unreasonable.

The decision emphasized that costs should reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, not necessarily the successful party's actual costs, and acknowledged the public interest element in the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action sought an extension of time to appeal a stay decision and an order to transfer and combine that appeal with a certification decision appeal, both arising from a single set of reasons by the class action judge.

The class action judge had dismissed certification and stayed claims for some class members due to arbitration agreements.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension and ordered the transfer and combination of appeals, finding strong reasons related to the administration of justice, given the interconnectedness of the underlying decisions and the risk of inconsistent results if heard separately.

This is a motion for certification for settlement purposes in a proposed privacy law class action concerning a data breach affecting 8.6 million customers of LifeLabs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs sought court approval for certifying the action for settlement, approving the settlement notices (Short and Long Form), and a plan for their dissemination.

The court granted the motion, finding that all criteria for certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in the settlement context.

The settlement involves a guaranteed fund of $4.9 million and a contingent fund of $4.9 million, with claimants receiving a minimum of $50.

This motion concerned the approval of several settlement agreements in ongoing automotive parts class actions, specifically with Mitsubishi Heavy, SKF, Brose, and Yamada.

The plaintiffs also sought approval for a distribution protocol for Automotive Bearings, Electric Powered Steering Assemblies, High Intensity Discharge Ballasts, and Manual Steering Columns actions, authorization for using previously produced customer information, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, use of residual wire harness funds, and class counsel's legal fees and disbursements.

The court granted all requests, finding the settlements and distribution protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and the requested fees and honoraria justified.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitral award under s. 46(1)(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the arbitrator treated them unfairly by refusing to allow an amendment to their statement of defence to plead negligent misrepresentation shortly before the peremptory hearing.

The respondent cross-applied to enforce the award.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator acted within his authority and did not treat the applicants unfairly, as the late amendment would have required further discovery and evidence.

The respondent's cross-application to enforce the award was granted.

A carriage motion was brought to determine which of two competing proposed class actions regarding allegedly misleading 'recyclable' claims on Keurig coffee pods should proceed in Ontario.

The court evaluated the competing proposals under section 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, focusing on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court awarded carriage to the Buis action, finding its narrower class definition and reliance on a damages model already utilized in a U.S. settlement offered a more efficient path to resolution.

The competing Gordon action was stayed.

This appeal concerns the applicability of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to "Database Defendants" (entities that collect and store personal information) when a data breach occurs due to the alleged negligence or recklessness of the defendant, but the actual intrusion is committed by independent third-party hackers.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, as defined in Jones v. Tsige, requires an act of intrusion by the defendant itself, not merely a failure to prevent intrusion by others.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the plaintiffs' claim, which alleged Equifax's failure to protect data from hackers, did not disclose a viable cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion against Equifax.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of settlement agreements totaling $7.9 million with seven defendant groups in multiple class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court also considered the approval of a distribution protocol, discontinuances and dismissals against certain defendants, representative plaintiff honoraria, and class counsel's 25% contingency fees.

The court found the settlements, distribution protocol, and fees to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and granted all requested approvals.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a class action settlement arising from data breaches at BMO and CIBC's Simplii Financial, which affected over 120,000 clients.

The hackers accessed personal information and demanded ransom payments.

The proposed settlement provided for a total payment of approximately $23 million, distributed among class members based on the type of information compromised and time spent addressing the breach.

The court applied the Mancinelli factors and found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the litigation risks associated with the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for third-party hacker intrusions.

The parties brought a motion to approve settlement agreements and distribution protocols in class actions arising from data breaches at BMO and CIBC (Simplii) that affected over 120,000 clients.

The proposed settlements provided a combined $22.9 million to compensate class members for time spent and inconvenience, with tiered compensation based on the sensitivity of the compromised information.

The court applied the Mancinelli factors and found the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks associated with the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for third-party hacker intrusions.

In a class proceeding against the Bank of Montreal, class counsel brought a motion for approval of their fees and an honourarium for the representative plaintiffs.

The court approved a $5,000 honourarium, finding the representative plaintiffs meaningfully contributed to access to justice and assumed active roles without financial risk.

The court also approved class counsel's fees at 25% of the settlement funds, totaling over $3.6 million plus disbursements, noting the 2.6 multiplier was appropriate given the significant risks assumed by counsel.

The plaintiff brought a motion for approval of class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honourarium following a class action settlement.

The court approved a $5,000 honourarium for the representative plaintiffs, finding they meaningfully contributed to access to justice and assumed no financial risk.

The court also approved class counsel fees calculated at 25% of the recovery, resulting in a 2.6 multiplier on docketed time, which was deemed appropriate given the significant risks assumed by counsel.

The plaintiffs in a certified competition law class action regarding a price-fixing conspiracy for lithium-ion batteries moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The court approved the settlement of approximately $8.2 million CAD and the requested 25% contingency fee, finding them fair and reasonable.

However, the court denied the request for a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, concluding his contribution was not exceptional.