Jeff Orenstein

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a class action settlement and class counsel fees regarding allegedly defective dive computers manufactured by the defendant.

The settlement included an inspection and repair program, a reimbursement fund, and educational certificates.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of US $400,000 and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought a case conference to establish a timetable for a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding against Keurig Canada Inc. regarding alleged misrepresentations about the recyclability of K-Cups.

The court noted the existence of three other overlapping proposed class proceedings in British Columbia, Federal Court, and Toronto.

The court declined to fix a date for the certification motion at this stage, instead ordering that a carriage motion be brought within 60 days to determine which action should proceed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes regarding allegedly defective dive computers manufactured by the defendant.

The court found that the statutory criteria for certification were met and that a class proceeding was the most appropriate way to provide remedies to purchasers.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, approved the proposed plan of advertising and notification, and scheduled a date for the settlement approval hearing.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the proposed class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff argued that an exchange of emails between counsel constituted an agreed timetable, or alternatively, that the court should exercise discretion to refuse the dismissal.

The court found that no timetable was agreed upon or filed with the court, and that the mandatory dismissal provision must be applied as written.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.

The plaintiff sought approval of a national class action settlement regarding defective Caterpillar engines, along with approval of class counsel fees and representative plaintiff honoraria.

The settlement established an $8,000,000 escrow fund to compensate class members across Canada, excluding Quebec, where a parallel proceeding was settled.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved the $2.4 million counsel fee as proportionate to the risk and effort, and granted a $10,000 honorarium to both the Ontario and Quebec representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff sought approval of a class action settlement regarding allegations that the defendants' premium pet food products did not always contain the advertised premium ingredients.

The settlement provided for nominal individual compensation to registered class members, a cy-près payment of $375,968 to veterinary schools and an animal charity, and injunctive relief ensuring product specifications match packaging claims.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the benefits outweighed the risks of continued litigation.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $295,000 and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, both to be paid separately by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of settlement.

The proposed settlement involved modest payments to registered class members without a claims process, and cy pres payments to universities researching pet health.

The court found the streamlined process fair and reasonable, certified a national class, and approved the notice process and schedule for the settlement approval hearing.

Two competing proposed class actions alleged an international price‑fixing conspiracy relating to rechargeable lithium‑ion batteries and related consumer electronic products.

Counsel in each action sought carriage of the class proceeding and a stay of the other action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court assessed factors including the scope of the claims, progress of the actions, proposed representative plaintiffs, class definitions, coordination with related proceedings, and the preparedness and strategic approach of counsel.

While both sets of counsel were experienced and many factors were neutral, the court found that the Shah action demonstrated a more proactive and coordinated approach, including earlier steps to refine the class definition, add defendants, obtain case management, and coordinate expert analysis.

The court concluded that awarding carriage to that action best advanced the interests of the proposed class.