Jeffrey Wayne Galway

This class action motion sought approval of a proposed settlement and class counsel fees concerning denied travel insurance claims by TD Home and Auto Insurance Company during the early COVID-19 pandemic, specifically regarding denials based on the availability of non-monetary compensation (credits/vouchers).

The parties reached a settlement of $5.1 million, with $4.8 million available for class members.

The settlement provides $100 for cash-refunded claims and at least 40% of the value for non-cash-refunded claims, allowing class members to retain travel credits.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class, noting the risks of litigation and the absence of objections.

Class counsel's request for fees, based on a 21.5% contingency rate (reduced to 17% for the class after defendant's contribution), was also approved as fair and reasonable, proportionate to the settlement size, and reflecting the work and risks undertaken.

Appellants brought a proposed class action alleging that respondents conspired to divide the beer market contrary to section 45(1) of the Competition Act through a Framework Agreement signed in 2000, and that a surcharge levied by Brewers Retail on licensees violated the Liquor Control Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the regulated conduct defence was available to the respondents.

The Liquor Control Act authorized the impugned conduct.

The Ontario legislature subsequently enacted retroactive amendments in 2015 to remove any doubt that the conduct was authorized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the regulated conduct defence insulated the respondents from liability and that retroactive legislation could provide authorization for the defence.

A lawyer appealed the dismissal of an application for a declaration that sections 267.5(1) and 280 of the Insurance Act violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application judge found the appellant lacked both private and public interest standing to bring the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the impugned provisions affected him personally and directly, and that his scholarly contributions and representation of affected clients did not establish a genuine interest in the outcome or demonstrate that the application was a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.

This addendum corrects an error in a previous costs decision (2018 ONSC 4862) regarding the amount of costs requested by Brewers Retail Inc. The original decision mistakenly stated Brewers Retail requested $600,000 on a partial indemnity basis, when the correct amount, based on an amended bill of costs, was $744,396.42, all inclusive, comprising fees, HST, and disbursements.

The court confirmed the costs award subject to this correction.

This decision concerns a costs award following the dismissal of the applicant's constitutional challenge to sections of the Insurance Act.

The court had previously found the applicant lacked standing and that the challenge failed on its merits.

The applicant argued for no costs, citing public interest, or a reduced award based on public sector salaries of Crown counsel.

The court rejected both arguments, stating that the litigation was speculative and without merit, and that costs for Crown lawyers are not reduced due to their salaried status.

The court fixed costs at $50,000, payable by the applicant to the Province of Ontario, which represented approximately one-third of a reasonable claim.

The applicant, a personal injury lawyer, challenged the constitutionality of sections 267.5(1) and 280 of the Insurance Act, which limit pre-trial recovery of lost income and grant sole jurisdiction to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule disputes, respectively.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing.

On the merits, the court found no breach of sections 15(1) or 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor a violation of section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as the impugned provisions did not create distinctions based on prohibited grounds, deprive individuals of life, liberty, or security of the person, or usurp superior court jurisdiction for a novel area of law.

The defendant Lenovo brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's class action claim in its entirety, arguing that none of the advanced causes of action could succeed.

The plaintiff had initially advanced five causes of action: breach of contract, implied condition of merchantability, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of provincial privacy laws, and negligence (the negligence claim was withdrawn).

The court granted the motion in part, striking the breach of contract claim, but dismissed the motion regarding the claims for implied condition of merchantability, intrusion upon seclusion, and breach of provincial privacy laws, finding them arguable and not plain and obvious to fail.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), sought approval for a second key employee retention plan (KERP 2), while a group of unions and representative counsel (Moving Parties) sought an order to terminate the suspension of other post-employment benefits (OPEBs).

The court granted the KERP 2 motion, finding it fair and reasonable for business stability and restructuring efforts.

The OPEB motion was denied, as the court found no fundamental improvement in USSC's profitability to warrant OPEB reinstatement, and that USSC's proposed one-time contribution of $2.7 million to a transition fund for retired employees appropriately balanced competing interests during the ongoing sales and investor solicitation process (SISP).

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc., sought an extension of the stay of proceedings, authorization and approval of a second amending and extension agreement for DIP financing, and approval of a second key employee retention plan (KERP).

United States Steel Corporation (USS) sought a shorter stay period.

The court granted the applicant's motion to extend the stay of proceedings to November 30, 2016, finding the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that a shorter, court-imposed deadline was not necessary or useful at that time.

The court also authorized and approved the Second Extension Agreement for DIP financing, noting its importance as a cash buffer and for maintaining business stability.

Motions regarding post-employment benefit plans and KERP were adjourned or granted separately.

This supplemental endorsement in CCAA proceedings addressed the secured status of a claim (#11(b)) filed by United States Steel Corporation (USS) against U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC).

The claim arose from USS's payments under guarantees for USSC's third-party obligations.

The court found that USS's rights of indemnification were not "Secured Obligations" under the November Security Agreement, primarily because the agreement's intent was limited to contractual obligations related to direct advances or sale of goods, not third-party guarantees.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the grant of security for these indemnification rights constituted a fraudulent preference under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act due to a lack of fresh consideration.

Consequently, Claim #11(b) was deemed an unsecured claim.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc., sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to July 28, 2016.

United States Steel Corporation (USS) opposed, seeking a shorter extension and the imposition of conditions for disclosure of Phase II bids and an updated liquidation analysis.

The court granted the extension as requested by the applicant, finding that the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that a longer stay furthered the prospect of a successful restructuring.

The court denied USS's requests for a shorter extension and conditions, deeming them premature and potentially detrimental to the restructuring process, and found insufficient evidence of value destruction.

The applicants (Representative Counsel for non-unionized employees and retirees, USW Locals 1005 and 8782, and the City of Hamilton) sought "for counsel's eyes only" disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement between United States Steel Corporation (USS), U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), and the Government of Canada.

The motion was brought in the context of CCAA proceedings, with applicants arguing procedural fairness and a minor exemption from settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced without access to the specific details of the undertakings in the agreement, or how the information was material to their claims or negotiations.

The court emphasized that there is no exemption from settlement privilege for the purpose of reviewing a document to determine if a public interest exists that would displace the privilege.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court addressed scheduling issues for a complex multi‑party trial involving the allocation of assets among creditor groups.

The parties proposed deferring the trial from April 1, 2014 to April 28, 2014, but disagreement remained regarding whether the later date would be feasible.

The court concluded that maintaining the earlier date risked a chaotic trial and that a rolling start date would create further uncertainty.

To ensure certainty and orderly preparation, the court rescheduled the trial to begin May 12, 2014 for 20 days and set case management and trial management conferences.

The court also required all parties to provide comprehensive fee and disbursement summaries to monitor escalating litigation costs.

The plaintiffs in a pension surplus class action moved for court approval of an amendment to a previously approved settlement after actuarial assumptions underlying the settlement proved incorrect and the anticipated surplus dramatically declined.

The amended settlement offered a guaranteed minimum payment and a potential capped second distribution if surplus re‑emerged by a specified date.

Numerous class members objected, arguing the amendment was unfair and inconsistent with the expectations created during the original settlement campaign.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve or reject the amended settlement but concluded the proposal was substantively, procedurally, circumstantially, and institutionally unfair.

The court emphasized that settlement approval requires fairness beyond mere monetary advantage and refused to approve an unfair settlement even if it represented the better option among undesirable alternatives.

In a certified class proceeding concerning the partial wind-up of a supplemental retirement plan, the defendant insurer brought a refusals motion seeking production of income information, tax assessments, and projected retirement income from the representative plaintiff and certain subclass members.

The defendant argued the information was necessary for its actuarial expert to quantify potential damages.

The court held that the requested information related to individual damage quantification rather than the certified common issues, which were limited to liability and the methodology for calculating damages.

Because the trial judge had not yet determined the methodology for assessing damages or whether aggregate damages could be assessed, ordering production was premature.

The court also held that obtaining information from absent class members would require leave under s. 15 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following a successful application to enforce a New York judgment in Ontario concerning the sale of a painting.

The court had previously permitted enforcement of the foreign judgment but stayed execution pending the outcome of an appeal in New York.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent had repeatedly attempted to relitigate issues already decided and had engaged in delay tactics through multiple proceedings and appeals.

The court agreed that the respondent’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs but reduced the amount claimed due to concerns about the involvement of multiple senior counsel.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $94,298.28 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.