Jonathan Reuben Samuel Schachter

The plaintiff, Justin Ngan, brought a motion to partially discontinue his claim, amend his pleadings, and certify the action as a class proceeding regarding the calculation of holiday and vacation pay by The Bank of Nova Scotia.

The defendant consented to the motion.

The court granted the orders, finding the amendments and discontinuance reasonable and the class action appropriate for certification.

The class includes employees who received incentive or variable compensation, and the common issues focus on whether such compensation should be included in statutory pay calculations under the Canada Labour Code.

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a class action: one to approve a settlement agreement with Graham Turner LLP, declare notice not required under s. 19 of the Class Proceedings Act, approve a notice plan for class members, and grant leave to remove Emily Flammini as a representative plaintiff; and a second motion to approve Class Counsel's legal fees, the Class Proceedings Fund's levy, and the use of the remaining settlement fund for ongoing disbursements.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, found notice of the hearing unnecessary given the use of funds for disbursements, approved the proposed notice plan, and granted the removal of the representative plaintiff.

Class Counsel's fees and the CPF levy were approved, and the balance of the settlement fund was ordered to be held in trust for the class and applied towards ongoing disbursements.

The proposed representative plaintiff in a product liability class action sought a protective order to anonymize their identity and seal sensitive personal information due to a history of sexual violence and PTSD, which led to their cannabis use and subsequent Cannabis Hypermesis Syndrome.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, applying the Sherman Estate test, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the plaintiff's well-being and dignity, no reasonable alternatives existed, and the benefits of protecting the plaintiff and encouraging other trauma survivors to access justice outweighed the minimal impact on court openness.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated August 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding parties.

The plaintiffs in a class action regarding a charitable donation tax shelter brought a motion to compel the defendants' former legal counsel to produce their client files and answer questions refused during discovery.

The plaintiffs argued that solicitor-client privilege was vitiated by the fraud exception, or alternatively, waived through disclosure of a tax opinion and sharing of information with third-party consultants.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the fraud exception applies only to criminal conduct, not civil fraud.

The court further held that disclosure of the stand-alone tax opinion did not waive privilege over the entire file, and that communications shared with third-party consultants were protected by common interest privilege and the functional extension of solicitor-client privilege.

The defendants appealed a Master's order that granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add new defendants and new claims regarding supplier contributions to an advertising fund, and ordered related documentary production.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal in part.

The court found that adding a new corporate defendant on the eve of trial constituted an abuse of process given the extensive delays in the nine-year-old franchise dispute.

The court also held that the Master erred in allowing the amendments regarding supplier contributions, as they constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred and not legally tenable under the clear terms of the franchise agreements.

The Master's orders adding the new party and allowing the supplier contribution amendments were set aside.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

This motion concerned a solicitor's negligence claim where the defendants sought further and better production of documents from the plaintiff, including a particularized Schedule 'B' for privileged documents.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statement of claim, notably to include a Charter-based claim against the defendants.

The court granted the defendants' motion for further production, emphasizing the plaintiff's obligation for fulsome disclosure in a solicitor's negligence claim, and ruled that solicitor-client privilege was impliedly waived regarding the legal advice and litigation strategy in the underlying criminal matter.

The court denied the plaintiff's proposed Charter amendment, finding no legal basis for such a claim against a private actor.

The defendants moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for a stay on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting that an order dismissing a jurisdiction motion for a stay is a final order.

Final orders of the Superior Court of Justice must be appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, not the Divisional Court.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $17 million settlement, a distribution protocol, and class counsel fees in a certified class action regarding prepaid payment cards.

The action alleged the defendants breached gift card regulations under the Consumer Protection Act by seizing expired balances and charging unauthorized fees.

After a summary judgment was granted in part and appealed by both parties, a settlement was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the distribution protocol and class counsel's fee request of 30% of the settlement amount.

Following a summary judgment in a class action regarding prepaid payment cards, the court determined the appropriate prejudgment and postjudgment interest to be awarded to the plaintiff class.

The court deferred the determination of a distribution protocol pending the resolution of the defendants' appeal and the plaintiff's cross-appeal.

The court awarded $1,233,753 in prejudgment interest and ordered postjudgment interest at a rate of 3.0% per annum on the total award of $18,063,753.

The applicants, Ronald and Maureen Kentner, moved for summary judgment to enforce a vendor take-back mortgage against the respondent, Marina Stefanovic, who had defaulted on payments.

Stefanovic opposed the motion, alleging that the Kentners' real estate agent had engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the property's purchase price and that the Kentners were complicit.

Stefanovic also argued that partial summary judgment was inappropriate given her counterclaim against the Kentners and others.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding the mortgage valid and enforceable, and that the Kentners did not participate in the alleged scheme.

The court determined that the mortgage claim was a discrete issue, suitable for bifurcation from the counterclaim, which would continue.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for judicial approval of 13 discrete auto part class action settlements with the HIAMS, Mitsuba, NGK, and Sumitomo Riko defendants, totaling approximately $14.8 million.

The court found that each of the proposed settlements fell within a zone of reasonableness, noting that the Canadian settlement amounts were proportionate to related American settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, plus disbursements and taxes, finding it presumptively valid.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action against the defendants for charging illegal fees and imposing expiry dates on prepaid payment cards, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05.

The court found that the defendants' Single Load Prepaid (SLP) cards were 'open loop gift cards' subject to the legislation, while their General Purpose Reloadable (GPR) cards were exempt as financial products.

The court granted summary judgment for the SLP cardholders, awarding $15,330,000 in aggregate damages for unlawful fees and seized balances, plus $1,500,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' intentional disregard of consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add a lawyer as a defendant, alleging the lawyer acted for it in a 2007 co-ownership conversion transaction and breached his duties.

The lawyer and the mortgagee he represented opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed claim was legally untenable because the lawyer solely represented the mortgagee and owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff had imputed knowledge of the potential claim in 2007 and actual knowledge by June 2014, well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The appellant appealed a judgment granting the respondent lawyers their claim for unpaid legal fees and dismissing his counterclaim for solicitor's negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in his findings regarding the necessity of the legal services and the lawyers' alleged negligence in handling settlements and a Mareva injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were fully supported by the evidence and there was no error in principle.

The Law Society appealed a decision of the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal ordering a new hearing due to a lack of disclosure.

The respondent lawyer, facing professional misconduct allegations related to real estate fraud, sought disclosure of the files of other lawyers involved in the transactions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 49.12 of the Law Society Act does not create a statutory privilege barring disclosure, but rather a confidentiality rule with exceptions for conduct proceedings.

The Court affirmed that the Stinchcombe disclosure regime applies, requiring the Law Society to disclose potentially relevant material from other lawyers' files, subject to resolving any solicitor-client privilege claims.

In an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging multiple contraventions, the respondents brought a preliminary motion arguing that several alleged breaches were statute‑barred because the applicant knew or ought to have known the relevant facts more than six weeks before commencing the application.

The motion was dismissed in earlier reasons.

The court then addressed costs and held that the applicant, as the successful party on the motion, was entitled to costs.

However, because the motion raised legitimate legal uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the Act’s timing provision, the court ordered partial indemnity costs payable in any event of the cause rather than forthwith.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by certain defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for successfully resisting the motion and for related procedural steps including a consent amendment to the statement of claim.

The court applied the discretionary criteria under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the significance of the motion to both parties and the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s litigation steps.

While the plaintiff largely succeeded, the court adjusted the claimed amount modestly based on reasonable expectations of the losing parties.

Costs were fixed in favour of the plaintiff against the moving defendants and separately against another defendant for an earlier substituted service motion.