In a class proceeding concerning a national settlement distribution plan, the court acted on its own initiative after receiving informal correspondence from class counsel and counsel for five class members alleging that the approved distribution plan contravened the Human Rights Code.
The court held that the parties' attempt to address a potentially serious legal issue through off-record letters and a proposed informal teleconference was procedurally improper for a superior court of record.
Relying on the court's inherent jurisdiction and ss. 12, 13, 26, and 35 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with analogy to Rule 77.04, the court ordered that the correspondence process stop.
Class counsel were directed to bring a formal motion for directions within 14 days, with a hearing scheduled for July 24, 2015.
