Jonathan Joseph Jennings Foreman

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.

The plaintiffs brought a closure motion in a national class action regarding price-fixing of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM).

The court approved a cy-près distribution of $922,974 in surplus settlement funds to organizations that refurbish computer equipment for educational needs.

The court also discharged the claims administrator and confirmed the payment of final disbursements to class counsel.

The plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action brought a motion for approval of a third-party Adverse Costs Indemnity and Funding Agreement with Camac Partners LLC.

The agreement provided up to $800,000 in adverse costs indemnity and $125,000 in disbursement funding in exchange for 10% of the net recovery, capped at $4 million.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court approved the agreement, finding its terms fair, reasonable, and necessary to provide access to justice for the plaintiffs and the proposed class.

The plaintiff brought motions to discontinue the action against an individual defendant, to certify the action as a class proceeding, and for partial summary judgment.

The court approved the discontinuance as it did not prejudice the class and secured the corporate defendant's consent to certification.

The court certified the class action against the remaining defendants, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action under the Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the nature of the relationship between the defendants and the interpretation of the statutory provisions raised genuine issues requiring a full trial.

The defendants in a proposed price-fixing class action brought a motion for directions to pause the proceeding pending the release of a Supreme Court of Canada decision in a related case.

The plaintiffs opposed the delay.

The court found that it made sense to await the Supreme Court's decision for efficiency, but declined to vacate the scheduled motion dates immediately.

The court directed that most cross-examinations proceed, but deferred the cross-examination of the plaintiffs' expert economist until after the Supreme Court hearing.

This is the third appeal in a class action arising from the acquisition of London Life by Great-West Life.

The class alleged that participating policy account (PAR) transactions violated the Insurance Companies Act.

The trial judge found breaches and awarded class counsel fees of $16.4 million with a first charge over the $56.43 million returned to PAR accounts, awarded $4 million in partial indemnity costs to the class, and imposed a levy in favour of the Law Foundation of Ontario.

The appellants challenged the class counsel fees, costs award, and levy.

The majority upheld all trial judge decisions, while the dissent argued that no monetary award was made to the class and therefore no charge could attach to the PAR accounts.

The plaintiff in a class action regarding alleged over-recovery of fuel surcharges by the defendant railway company brought a motion for documentary production and to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination.

The defendant had brought a motion for summary judgment based on narrow legal grounds, arguing that the Canada Transportation Act is a complete code and that the claims are statute-barred or disclose no cause of action.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motions, finding that the requested production and answers related to the factual issue of over-recovery, which was irrelevant to the purely legal issues raised in the defendant's summary judgment motion.

The court also accepted the defendant's evidence that the specific data requested by the plaintiff did not exist and would require complex, arbitrary allocation to create.

The defendants in a proposed price-fixing class action brought a motion to strike the affidavits of the plaintiffs' economics expert, arguing the proposed methodologies for calculating aggregate damages and pass-through rates were invalid and unreliable.

The court applied the test for admissibility of expert evidence and found that the expert's proposed regression models and economic analyses met the threshold for reliability and were highly probative to the certification motion.

The motion to strike was dismissed, with the issue of the legal relevance of umbrella purchaser claims deferred to the certification hearing.

Two consortiums of proposed Class Counsel brought competing motions for carriage of a proposed competition law class action against several German automobile manufacturers.

The underlying actions alleged that the defendants engaged in an anti-competitive conspiracy relating to automotive design, development, manufacturing, and marketing.

The court evaluated the competing litigation plans and case theories, noting that both were viable but that the Quenneville action presented a superior, more creative, and more developable case theory that appropriately included claims for deceptive marketing under the Competition Act.

The court granted carriage to the Quenneville action and stayed the competing Stibbe action.

The plaintiffs moved under Rule 59.06(2)(c) to enforce a prior trial judgment's prohibition against the defendants debiting defence costs from participating accounts.

The defendants had allocated 50% of legal costs to these accounts prior to the judgment without seeking leave.

The court found that the prohibition order, which enjoined the defendants from debiting "any costs or expenses incurred... in the defence of these actions" applied retrospectively to all costs, whenever incurred, and was not merely prospective.

The court rejected the defendants' functus officio argument, affirming its jurisdiction under Rule 59.06(2)(c) to carry its orders into operation.

The defendants were ordered to move for leave to charge the previously allocated legal costs.

This endorsement addresses the approval of class counsel fees, plaintiffs' costs, defendants' costs, and the Law Foundation of Ontario's levy following a decade-long class action concerning the legality of Par account transactions (PATs) by London Life and Great-West Life.

The court approved class counsel fees of $16.4 million, found the plaintiffs entitled to $4 million in partial indemnity costs from the defendants, and denied the defendants' claim for costs.

It also determined that the Law Foundation of Ontario was entitled to a levy of $1,520,346.50 (repayment of disbursements) plus 10% of the net monetary award ($4,030,000), totaling $5,550,346.50, to be paid from the participating accounts.

The court clarified that a "monetary award" for the purposes of the Class Proceedings Act and the Law Society Act includes funds paid to the benefit of class members through participating accounts, even if not directly distributed to individuals.

This decision addresses an application by the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel in a settled class action for various relief related to the administration and distribution of an $80 million settlement fund.

The application sought orders to adjust small claims, distribute surplus monies, approve payment of the remaining legal fee holdback, approve disbursements for Class Counsel and other legal services, and establish a holdback for future disbursements.

The Ontario court, after conferring with parallel proceedings in British Columbia and Québec, granted the application, adopting the analysis of the decisions from the other two provinces.

The representative plaintiff in a securities class action sought court approval of an $11 million settlement agreement, a plan of distribution, and class counsel fees.

The action alleged that the defendants misrepresented the development costs of a mining project.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks, including proving liability and overcoming statutory liability caps under the Securities Act.

The court also approved the plan of distribution, the appointment of the claims administrator, and class counsel's fee request of $2.75 million (25% of the settlement) plus disbursements, finding them fair and reasonable given the results achieved and risks assumed.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act arising from the insolvency of a payday lending enterprise, class members moved for approval of settlement administration measures related to consumer class action settlements.

The requested approvals included a settlement distribution protocol, notice plan, privacy and information management protocol, and appointment of a claims administrator.

A third‑party creditor that had purchased loan receivables from the debtor sought accommodation to assert an equitable set‑off against class members’ settlement recoveries.

The court held that the creditor’s claim lacked the close connection required for equitable set‑off and was effectively a prejudgment garnishment against settlement funds.

The administrative protocols were approved as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending group, class counsel for Ontario consumer class actions sought court approval of contingency fees and disbursements following settlement of related class proceedings.

The settlements produced monetary recoveries exceeding $10 million for class members, with potential additional recovery from future litigation proceeds.

The court reviewed the reasonableness of the requested 25% contingency fee and disbursements using established factors including results achieved, litigation risk, and responsibility assumed by class counsel.

The motion was unopposed.

The court concluded the requested fees and disbursements were reasonable and approved the amounts.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

During the distribution phase of a class proceeding, class counsel and counsel for five class members sought court approval of an instruction to the claims administrator to resolve a potential Human Rights Code complaint regarding the distribution plan.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it could not endorse the proposed instruction or the payment of costs from the settlement fund without ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The court directed that a full motion for directions proceed.