Jeffrey Simpson

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 plaintiff, Unlimited Motors Inc., sought to continue a $30 million action for breach of contract and other claims after it had lapsed, requiring a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for a 2.5-year delay unacceptable, primarily due to a deliberate choice to prioritize another lawsuit.

The plaintiff also failed to provide robust evidence demonstrating an absence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendant or trial fairness, despite the defendant's own inaction on its counterclaim.

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

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve settlements with National Bank, Visa, and MasterCard in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix merchant discount fees.

The settlements provided for a total payment of $45 million, modifications to the 'No Surcharge Rule', and cooperation in the ongoing action against the remaining non-settling defendants.

Despite objections from Wal-Mart and Home Depot regarding the breadth of the releases, the court found the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the weaknesses in the plaintiffs' case against Visa and MasterCard under the Competition Act.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request.

The plaintiff, Brand Name Marketing Inc., brought an action against Rogers Communications Inc. for breach of a non-disclosure agreement and breach of confidence.

The plaintiff alleged that it provided confidential marketing concepts to Rogers regarding a 'Pink Phone program' and a 'Call for the Cure program', which involved affinity marketing with a breast cancer charity.

The plaintiff claimed that Rogers misused this information to launch its own 'Pink Razr campaign' and sought over $14 million in damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff could not enforce the NDA as it was not a party to it at the relevant time.

Furthermore, the court held that while certain financial projections were confidential, the general concept of a charitable donation tied to a product sale was public knowledge.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Rogers did not use the plaintiff's confidential information in designing or implementing the Pink Razr campaign, which was fundamentally different from the plaintiff's proposals.

The plaintiff, Trisan Construction, brought a motion for summary judgment against its former lawyer, Mark Epstein, for professional negligence and breach of contract in a construction lien collection matter.

The court found Epstein negligent in failing to properly identify the limitation period, delaying the issuance and service of the statement of claim, and delaying the notice of garnishment, but concluded these failures did not cause damages due to the client's insolvency.

However, the court found Epstein negligent for failing to advise Trisan about a potential breach of trust claim under s.13 of the Construction Lien Act against the directors and officers of Bianchi.

The court could not determine causation or quantify damages for this specific negligence without expert evidence and directed a trial of an issue on this point.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes against a credit card network defendant in a competition law action alleging conspiracy to fix merchant discount and interchange fees for Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions.

The claims included alleged breaches of the Competition Act, tortious conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and unjust enrichment.

The court considered the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, an identifiable class was established, common issues existed, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

The court noted that certification for settlement purposes still requires satisfaction of the statutory criteria, though the analysis may be less strict given the settlement context.

Certification was granted as against the settling defendant and the proposed notice and notice plan were approved.

The plaintiff invested $145,000 in a non-existent company based on fraudulent representations by the defendant stock promoter.

The plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the promoter, his wife, and his corporation for fraud and unpaid loans.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment for fraud against the promoter and the corporation, finding the promoter's self-serving affidavits and failure to produce supporting documents did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

However, the Court set aside the summary judgment against the promoter's wife due to insufficient evidence of her involvement, and against the promoter for the loans due to conflicting evidence.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a default judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The appellants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent wrongly invoked the Registrar's jurisdiction.

The respondent sought costs thrown away due to the appellants' initial failure to defend.

The court declined to award costs of the motion or appeal to either party, noting the appellants' default caused the proceedings and they failed to raise the jurisdictional issue below.

The appellants were ordered to pay $290 in costs thrown away for the steps taken by the respondent in default.