John P. Brown

The defendant, Ericsson Canada Inc., brought a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the plaintiff's action and compel arbitration of a dispute concerning unpaid commissions under a Sales Incentive Plan (SIP).

The plaintiff, Dahl Morrison, argued the arbitration clause was not binding, that Ontario law governed his employment, and that arbitration in Texas would be inconvenient and expensive, especially given other claims for wrongful dismissal.

The court found the SIP's arbitration clause to be clear and mandatory, requiring disputes arising from the plan to be settled by final and binding arbitration in Dallas, Texas.

Citing Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court ruled that the existence of a valid arbitration agreement ousted the court's jurisdiction.

The motion was granted, the Ontario action was stayed, and the plaintiff was directed to proceed with arbitration.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding air freight shipping services brought a motion for approval of a notice of hearing regarding a settlement with one of the defendants.

The plaintiffs also sought orders requiring non-settling defendants and a non-party association to produce customer information, and authorizing freight forwarders to voluntarily disclose customer information, to facilitate the notice and claims process.

The court approved the notice plan and granted the production orders, finding that section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act satisfies the requirements for disclosure under section 7(3)(c) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

In a national class action alleging price fixing in the Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) market, the representative plaintiff sought approval of multiple settlement agreements with several defendant manufacturers under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed settlements totalled $3,050,000 and followed earlier settlements with other defendants.

The court considered whether the agreements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and reviewed the proposed distribution protocol, administration protocol, claims administrator appointment, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honorarium.

The court approved the settlements, associated distribution and administration plans, class counsel fees and disbursements, and dismissed the remaining claim against the final defendant.

The court accepted the settlements as falling within the zone of reasonableness and consistent with the interests of the class.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging a global price-fixing conspiracy by the defendants regarding airfreight shipping services.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action as it related to absent foreign claimants, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court granted the motion, finding that the real and substantial connection test should not be applied to establish jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants, as an Ontario judgment would not be recognized abroad, offending principles of order, fairness, and comity.

Alternatively, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, it would decline it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Costs decision following the abandonment of a Rule 45 motion in a class proceeding seeking an order requiring the defendant to pay an alleged fund into court.

The court considered the presumptive rule under Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a responding party is entitled to costs when a motion is abandoned.

While the plaintiff had a reasonable basis initially to believe the defendant possessed the alleged fund, the court found the motion would have failed because the existence of a fund could not be proven.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the absence of reprehensible conduct but granted partial indemnity costs.

The defendant was awarded $30,000 for the abandoned Rule 45 motion and $8,750 for a related refusals motion.

In a proposed national class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM semiconductor devices, the representative plaintiffs sought approval of four additional settlement agreements with certain defendants and approval of class counsel fees.

The court assessed whether the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Although no finalized distribution protocol for settlement funds had yet been developed, the court concluded the settlements—totaling $23.325 million and including cooperation provisions—were reasonable given litigation risk and the benefit of cooperation against non‑settling defendants.

The court also scrutinized class counsel’s request for a 30% contingency fee of approximately $7.13 million.

Finding that percentage excessive at this stage of the proceedings, the court reduced the fee award to 20% of total settlements achieved to date and approved an interim fee of $4,180,345.59.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class action alleged negligent design and manufacture of elevator “sheave jammer” braking devices and breach of maintenance contracts following a regulatory order requiring their replacement.

The parties reached a mediated settlement establishing a $12 million settlement fund for class members who incurred costs replacing the devices.

The court held the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness given litigation risks, including uncertainty in proving defectiveness and potential reduction of damages through betterment arguments.

The court approved the settlement, class counsel fees, and a $15,000 honorarium for one representative plaintiff, but declined compensation for the second representative plaintiff.

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.

In a proposed class action alleging a conspiracy among DRAM manufacturers to fix prices, the plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action for settlement purposes against one defendant following a settlement agreement.

The settlement required the defendant to pay $5.75 million for the benefit of class members in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and determined that the criteria for certification were satisfied.

The court also approved the proposed notice and notice plan, which aligned with a similar approval in British Columbia.

The motion was unopposed and the orders were granted as requested.

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 defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action and permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include negligent design.

The class action concerned allegedly defective elevator sheave jammers that the defendants installed and later required replacement.

The defendants argued the motions judge misapplied the 'some basis in fact' test for certification by not weighing their evidence against the plaintiffs' evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting jurisprudence on the certification test and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on either the certification or the pleading amendment.

The appellant, a non-settling defendant in a class action arising from an aviation accident, appealed an order approving partial settlements.

The appellant argued that the settlement's bar orders, which prohibited further discovery of the settling defendants, would prejudice its defence and prevent the trial court from properly allocating fault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bar orders did not prevent the appellant from raising its liability arguments at trial.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the benefits of the settlement to the class outweighed any remote prejudice to the appellant's procedural rights.

The defendants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay a proposed class action in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing it was precluded by s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the motions judge's decision was interlocutory because she deferred the final determination of whether the dispute should be arbitrated to the certification stage of the class proceeding.

As the order was not final, s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act applied to bar the appeal.

The appellant sought solicitor-and-client costs pursuant to Rule 49.10 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent argued the offer was ambiguous regarding costs and incapable of acceptance, and that the appellant failed to obtain the relief sought.

The Court of Appeal applied recent jurisprudence holding that uncertainty in an offer is only relevant to whether the party met its burden of proof under Rule 49.10.

The court found the appellant met its burden and awarded party-and-party costs to the date of the offer and solicitor-and-client costs thereafter.

The appellant corporation entered into a personal services contract with the respondent company.

The contract, drafted by the appellant's principal, contained a termination clause providing for compensation if the respondent unilaterally terminated the agreement.

The respondent's principal signed the contract without reading the termination clause.

The respondent later unilaterally terminated the agreement.

The trial judge held that the appellant's principal owed a duty to bring the termination clause to the respondent's attention and rectified the contract by striking the clause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no such duty existed as the respondent's principal was an experienced businessman who was advised to read the contract.

The Court also held that rectification was inapplicable as there was no mutual intention regarding unilateral termination.

The appellant, a bank employee in a position of trust, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful dismissal action.

The motions judge found the bank had just cause to dismiss her after she engaged in kiting or similar conduct, having been warned twice previously.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no trial was required as the appellant had no innocent explanation and admitted to the conduct.

The appellant municipality sought to enforce Ontario's building code and development charge regime against a massive redevelopment project at a federally owned international airport operated under long-term leases.

The court held that the entire redevelopment, including terminals, runways, utilities, and air navigation facilities, fell within Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics and also formed part of a federal undertaking, such that provincial laws directly regulating building design, permits, and development charges were constitutionally inapplicable under interjurisdictional immunity.

The court further held that provincial land and property development legislation could not apply to the federal Crown's continuing property interest in leased airport lands.

Ancillary claims based on the ground lease, common law compensation, and refusal of fire services were rejected, with the municipality directed to pursue the statutory grant-in-lieu regime instead.