John F. Rook

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by a multi-site public hospital to relocate 10 inpatient beds from its Durham site to other sites due to nursing shortages.

The hospital brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not of a public character.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the hospital is a private not-for-profit corporation and its internal operational decision to allocate resources was not an exercise of state authority subject to judicial review.

The plaintiff in a price-fixing class action sought approval of a settlement with the sole individual defendant.

The settlement provided no monetary compensation but required the defendant to provide extensive cooperation, including an evidentiary proffer, interviews, document exchange, and trial testimony.

The court approved the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, as the defendant's inside information offered significant strategic value against the remaining corporate defendants.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

Two sets of appellants (manufacturers of optical disc drives) appealed the certification of a price-fixing class proceeding in British Columbia.

The majority held that the discoverability rule applies to extend the two-year limitation period in s. 36(4)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, that fraudulent concealment can toll a limitation period without requiring a special relationship between the parties, that umbrella purchasers (persons who bought from non-defendant manufacturers) have a cause of action under s. 36(1)(a), that s. 36(1) does not bar concurrent common law and equitable claims, and that a plaintiff's expert methodology need only establish that overcharges reached the indirect-purchaser level to certify loss as a common issue.

Côté J. dissented in part, finding that the discoverability rule does not apply to s. 36(4)(a)(i) and that umbrella purchasers have no cause of action under s. 36(1).

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellants brought a class action against defendant manufacturers and suppliers alleging they conspired to fix the price of lithium-ion batteries sold in Canada between January 2000 and December 2011.

The conspiracy allegedly impacted all purchasers, including "umbrella purchasers" whose batteries originated from non-defendants, as the cartel's price increases caused non-conspirators to also raise prices.

The certification judge certified only a statutory claim under the Competition Act for non-umbrella purchasers.

The Divisional Court certified an unlawful means conspiracy claim but excluded umbrella purchasers, citing indeterminate liability concerns.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the principle of indeterminate liability does not apply to either the statutory claim or the unlawful means conspiracy claim, and that umbrella purchasers should be included in the class with a subclass created for non-umbrella purchasers regarding aggregate damages quantification.

The plaintiffs and defendants both sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding an alleged global price-fixing conspiracy in the lithium-ion battery industry.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the denial of certification for claims relating to unlawful means conspiracy and umbrella purchasers.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the certification of the civil remedy claim under s. 36 of the Competition Act.

The Divisional Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions and that the issues merited appellate attention.

The defendants' motion for leave to appeal was denied, as they failed to establish conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy that artificially inflated prices for direct and indirect purchasers in Canada.

The court certified the action solely for the statutory cause of action under section 36 of the Competition Act.

The court excluded 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought from non-defendants) from the class, finding it plain and obvious they lacked a cause of action due to indeterminate liability and lack of restitutionary basis.

The court also declined to certify the common law claims for unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment, holding that they were precluded by the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Competition Act.

The remaining certification criteria were met for the statutory claim.

Following certification of a national class proceeding and dismissal of defendants’ summary judgment motions, the court determined costs arising from the certification and related motions.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing costs in class proceedings, including fairness, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the access to justice objectives of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The litigation involved extensive evidence, numerous defendants, and complex factual and legal issues affecting approximately 10,000 class members with alleged losses approaching $150 million.

The court rejected requests for substantial indemnity costs and declined to refer costs to formal assessment, instead fixing costs directly.

Significant partial indemnity costs and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiff, apportioned among the defendant groups.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the promoters, lawyers, and other entities involved in a charitable donation tax shelter scheme called the Donations for Canada Gift Program.

The Canada Revenue Agency had disallowed the charitable tax credits claimed by the participants, finding they lacked donative intent.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that a trial was required to fully appreciate the evidence and resolve the complex factual issues, including whether the contracts were vitiated by fraud.

The appellants, a lawyer and his professional corporation, appealed an order striking their 120-page statement of claim and expunging it from the record.

The claim alleged multiple causes of action arising from the termination of their retainer by the City of Waterloo.

The motion judge found the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained irrelevant allegations, and improperly disclosed privileged and confidential information.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the pleading was prolix, lacked material facts, and improperly placed arguably privileged information in the public domain.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as it would not affect the outcome.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from seeking access to discovery evidence in parallel U.S. anti-trust litigation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent Ontario's discovery rules by obtaining discovery in the U.S. before certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were merely seeking passive access to evidence already discovered in the U.S. litigation, rather than actively conducting discovery.

The court held that such evidence gathering does not offend Ontario's discovery rules or the implied undertaking rule, and that the U.S. court should determine whether to grant access under its own protective order.

The appellant gas company appealed a declaration that the respondent municipality's right to purchase the gas distribution system arose upon the expiry of the 20-year term of their franchise agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the franchise agreement explicitly made the municipality's right to purchase subject to section 10 of the Municipal Franchises Act.

Under section 10, the Ontario Energy Board has the power to renew or extend the franchise.

Therefore, the franchise does not terminate, and the municipality's right to purchase does not arise, if the Board orders an extension.

The appellant, Welch Foods Inc., appealed a trial judgment that found it had unreasonably withheld consent for the respondent, Cadbury Beverages Canada Inc., to enter into a co-packing arrangement with a third party under their 1972 licensing agreement.

The trial judge awarded damages to the respondent for the unreasonable refusal and imposed conditions on the appellant's future discretion to withhold consent.

The trial judge also found the respondent breached the agreement by selling competing products but refused to allow the appellant to terminate the agreement, instead ordering a royalty payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal, upholding the trial judge's interpretation of the agreement, the finding of unreasonable refusal, the damages award, and the refusal to terminate the agreement.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by removing certain conditions imposed on the appellant's future discretion to withhold consent.

The appellant challenged both the trial judgment and the costs award arising from a dispute concerning consideration for shares and obligations under minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal rejected the attack on the trial judge’s factual findings, holding there was evidence to support the impugned findings.

However, it held the trial judge erred in principle in awarding solicitor-client costs because the pleadings, while strongly worded, did not amount to fraud or dishonest conduct warranting elevated costs and were not pursued unreasonably.

Leave to appeal costs was granted, the appeal on costs was allowed, and party-party costs were substituted, with the respondent recovering 90 percent of the costs of the appeal.