Katherine L. Kay

The appellants brought a motion seeking to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for one appellant, to require a mental examination, to remove counsel, to extend time to perfect the appeal, and to seal evidence concerning mental health.

The motion judge addressed the sealing and confidentiality issues under the two-part test from Sierra Club v. Canada (Minister of Finance).

The court ordered redaction of solicitor-client communications and certain historical medical information as reasonable alternatives to confidentiality orders.

However, the court declined to grant a confidentiality order for current observations of the appellant's mental state, finding insufficient evidence of necessity under the Sierra Club test.

References to a non-party's health information were also redacted as unnecessary and irrelevant.

This appeal concerns the applicable test for determining jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants (AFCs) in a class action involving allegations of conspiracy to fix prices of air freight shipping services for shipments from or to Canada between 2000 and 2006.

The motion judge had rejected the real and substantial connection test and held that jurisdiction could only be established if AFCs were present in Ontario or had consented to the court's jurisdiction.

The motion judge also declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the real and substantial connection test applies to class actions involving AFCs and that jurisdiction may be established where there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter and Ontario, common issues exist between representative plaintiffs and AFCs, and procedural safeguards of adequate representation, notice, and opt-out rights are provided.

The court also found that forum non conveniens did not apply as no clearly more appropriate forum existed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, which alleged that the defendant breached an ad hoc fiduciary duty owed to them regarding an option agreement and an equity position in a pharmaceutical company.

The court found that the defendant made no commitment or undertaking to the plaintiffs that would give rise to a fiduciary duty.

Furthermore, the court held that the action was an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to re-litigate issues concerning the option agreement that had already been decided against the plaintiffs in a previous proceeding against the estate's executor.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve class action settlements with the Sumitomo and GS Electech defendants regarding alleged price-fixing of automotive wire harness systems, electronic control units, and heating control panels.

The court found the settlements, totaling $11 million for Sumitomo and $120,000 for GS Electech, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness compared to U.S. settlements and potential damages.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

This decision approves two class action settlements against Furukawa and Fujikura defendants for price-fixing in the automotive wire harness systems (AWHS) industry.

The court certified the class actions for settlement purposes, finding that the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The settlements, for $2.3 million (Furukawa) and $1,083,280 (Fujikura), were deemed fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class, based on detailed affidavit evidence from class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, calculated as a 25% contingency plus disbursements and taxes, consistent with retainer agreements and prior jurisprudence.

The plaintiff, Christopher Staines, brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes in a proposed class action alleging that numerous defendants conspired to fix prices in the FX Market.

Settlements were reached with UBS, BNP Paribas, and Bank of America.

The court reviewed the five-part test under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and, applying a less rigorous standard for settlement contexts, found all criteria satisfied.

The motion for certification for settlement purposes was granted.

The representative plaintiff, Fanshawe College, sought to amend the class definition in a certified class proceeding alleging price-fixing of LCD panels.

Two amendments were proposed: a broad "all purchasers' amendment" to include all direct and indirect purchasers, and an "alternative amendment" to expand the list of named OEMs and distributors.

The court denied the "all purchasers' amendment," finding it an abuse of process as it attempted to re-litigate an issue previously abandoned and decided by the certification judge.

However, the court granted the "alternative amendment," as it was specifically contemplated by the certification judge and the claims were not found to be time-barred.

Following a prior decision approving class counsel fees in a class proceeding settlement, class counsel sought clarification regarding the calculation of the fee award, treatment of consulting law firm fees, application of taxes, and comments regarding disclosure of a fee sharing agreement.

The court acknowledged that an arithmetic error had occurred in the original calculation and corrected the award by applying a 10% reduction to the claimed counsel fee before adding disbursements.

The court clarified that consulting law firms were to be paid from the approved counsel fee rather than treated as additional disbursements and confirmed that applicable taxes were payable in addition to the approved amount.

The court also addressed concerns about disclosure of the fee sharing agreement, reiterating that failure to fully disclose the agreement’s substance was a mistake despite counsel’s intentions.

Representative plaintiffs in a proposed national competition law class action sought court approval of partial settlement agreements with three defendants, approval of contingency fee agreements with class counsel, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court approved settlements totaling $13.63 million with Bank of America, Capital One, and Citigroup and found the agreements fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court also approved the contingency fee agreements but scrutinized a separate fee‑sharing agreement between class counsel and a rival law firm that had commenced competing class actions.

The judge held that the fee‑sharing agreement required court approval, was not fair or reasonable to class members, and may constitute champerty or maintenance.

Class counsel’s requested fee was reduced by 10%, and the court ordered that no payment be made to the rival firm under the unauthorized agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy that artificially inflated prices for direct and indirect purchasers in Canada.

The court certified the action solely for the statutory cause of action under section 36 of the Competition Act.

The court excluded 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought from non-defendants) from the class, finding it plain and obvious they lacked a cause of action due to indeterminate liability and lack of restitutionary basis.

The court also declined to certify the common law claims for unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment, holding that they were precluded by the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Competition Act.

The remaining certification criteria were met for the statutory claim.

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.

In a certified franchise class action alleging price maintenance and breaches of franchise law, the representative plaintiffs sought court approval of a proposed settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement provided $275,000 to reimburse class counsel disbursements and required class members to release all claims relating to the purchase, sale, distribution, promotion, or marketing of supplies.

The court held that although the settlement outcome was otherwise reasonable given the weak prospects of success and litigation risks, the release clause was overbroad because it could bar future claims unrelated to the existing alleged misconduct.

The judge found that approving such a release would unfairly deprive class members of potential future claims.

The court therefore refused to approve the settlement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes against a credit card network defendant in a competition law action alleging conspiracy to fix merchant discount and interchange fees for Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions.

The claims included alleged breaches of the Competition Act, tortious conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and unjust enrichment.

The court considered the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, an identifiable class was established, common issues existed, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

The court noted that certification for settlement purposes still requires satisfaction of the statutory criteria, though the analysis may be less strict given the settlement context.

Certification was granted as against the settling defendant and the proposed notice and notice plan were approved.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking certification of a proposed class proceeding against one defendant for settlement purposes.

The claim alleged a conspiracy to raise, maintain, fix, or stabilize gasoline prices in Eastern Ontario contrary to the Competition Act and the common law.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, the proposed class definition was objectively ascertainable, and the existence of the alleged conspiracy constituted a common issue suitable for class determination.

The court further found that the representative plaintiff adequately represented the class and that the proposed settlement agreement contained a workable litigation plan including opt‑out procedures and notice provisions.

Certification for settlement purposes was granted as against the settling defendant.

In a certified class action alleging price maintenance and conspiracy by a franchisor and its designated food supplier, the parties brought reciprocal motions regarding refusals on examinations for discovery.

The court applied the principles of relevance, materiality, and proportionality, emphasizing that the action was certified based on a 'top-down' systemic approach rather than a 'bottom-up' product-by-product analysis.

The court largely upheld the refusals, finding many questions to be irrelevant, disproportionate, or inconsistent with the certified common issues, while ordering a small number of questions to be answered.

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 defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged breach of a settlement agreement, civil conspiracy, and interference with economic relations arising from the defendants' implementation of new real estate rules that effectively prohibited the plaintiffs' flat-fee brokerage model.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded all necessary elements for breach of contract, predominant purpose conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, and interference with economic relations.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the claims would fail, and that the individual defendants could be held personally liable despite being officers or directors of the corporate defendants, as the pleadings alleged they acted maliciously, outside their authority, and for their own personal business interests.