Katherine L. Kay

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.

In a multi-jurisdictional class action regarding credit card merchant fees, Class Counsel entered into a Fee Sharing Agreement with a competing law firm to resolve a carriage dispute.

The agreement provided the competing firm up to $800,000 from Class Counsel's fees in exchange for staying rival actions.

On a motion to approve a partial settlement and fees, the motion judge reduced Class Counsel's requested fees by 10%, declared the Fee Sharing Agreement unenforceable, and prohibited any payments to the competing firm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the fee reduction and the prohibition on paying the competing firm from the settlement or approved fees, finding the agreement was subject to court approval under the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the Court set aside the declaration that the agreement was entirely unenforceable from any source, as the competing firm was not given notice or an opportunity to make submissions on that specific issue.

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.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario seeking $400 million in damages and served the defendants in Guatemala, a non-Hague Convention state, in accordance with Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants appealed the validation of service, arguing that Rule 17.05(2) must be interpreted in accordance with customary international law and comity, which would require service to comply with Guatemalan law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that service under Rule 17.05(2) does not violate Guatemalan sovereignty or international law, and that the rule provides a clear choice of service methods that rebuts any presumption of conformity with foreign law.

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.

The appellants appealed an order validating substituted service of a statement of claim on defendants residing in Guatemala.

Guatemala is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, and service was attempted by notaries in a manner that did not comply with Guatemalan law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that Rule 17.05(2) unambiguously allows a plaintiff to choose to serve a foreign party in accordance with Ontario rules when the foreign jurisdiction is a non-contracting state.

The Court held that this express rule overrides the international principle of comity.

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 moving parties brought a motion to quash an appeal from an order that declared and validated service of a fresh statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not determine the real matters in dispute or deprive the responding parties of any substantive defence.

The motion was allowed, the appeal was quashed, and the matter was transferred to the Divisional Court where the responding parties could seek leave to appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that several Guatemalan defendants were properly served with a fresh statement of claim outside Ontario or, alternatively, an order validating service.

The proceeding alleged a $400 million conspiracy and fraud causing damage in Ontario.

The court considered Rules 17.02 and 17.05(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing service outside Ontario in non‑contracting states under the Hague Service Convention.

The court held that where the foreign jurisdiction is not a contracting state, parties may serve originating process using Ontario service rules rather than the foreign state's service regime.

Personal service on corporate defendants was valid, and service on individual defendants was validated under rule 16.08 because the claim came to their attention despite attempts to evade service.

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.