Jonathan Schachter

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.

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 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.

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.