Jeffrey Howard Orenstein

This is a motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning automobile airbags that had been recalled.

The action, which had not been certified, sought compensation for pure economic loss.

Due to developments in case law, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification on pure economic loss for defective products, the litigation risk increased, and the prospects for certification and substantial economic recovery diminished.

Class Counsel sought leave to discontinue the action with prejudice and without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the test for discontinuance was satisfied, and putative class members were not prejudiced, as limitation periods remained suspended.

This is a class proceeding concerning alleged defects in Toyota Tundra, Tacoma, and Sequoia vehicle frames.

The plaintiffs and defendant reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, which included a voluntary notice, recall, inspection, repair, and replacement program for affected vehicles.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in coordination with the Quebec Superior Court, approved the settlement under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees and disbursements, and modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs, noting that these payments were separate from the class benefits.

The court retained jurisdiction to supervise the settlement's implementation and required a final report from the claims administrator.

In a complex scenario involving competing national class proceedings against Toyota Canada Inc. concerning premature vehicle frame rust, the plaintiffs in one action (the Toronto action) brought a motion to transfer two other identical actions (Ottawa and London) to Toronto.

The plaintiffs in the Ottawa action opposed the transfer.

The court determined that the transfer motion was a proxy for a carriage motion and that deciding venue before carriage and consolidation would be premature.

The court adjourned the venue transfer motion and directed that a carriage motion proceed, seizing itself of the matter to ensure efficient resolution and avoid judicial delay.

This omnibus motion concerned the certification of a class action for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement agreement, notice of certification and opt-out rights, class counsel fees, and honorariums for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the absence of opt-outs or objections.

The requested class counsel fees and plaintiff honorariums were also approved.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed national class proceeding (excluding Quebec) concerning alleged premature failure of bulbs in certain model televisions, approval of a negotiated settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approval of class counsel fees.

The court held that the certification requirements under s. 5(1) were satisfied in the settlement context and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

Applying the settlement approval framework from Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance and related authorities, the court found the negotiated settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.

The settlement extended warranties and provided reimbursement for replacement bulbs subject to a claims process.

The court also approved class counsel fees as reasonable given the risks assumed and the results achieved.