Kelly Lynn Friedman

The plaintiffs in a competition law class action regarding price-fixing of lithium-ion batteries brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes against two groups of defendants, NEC and Samsung.

The plaintiffs and the settling defendants reached settlement agreements and agreed on a plan for disseminating the notice of hearing for settlement approval.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met in the settlement context and granted the motion to certify the action for settlement purposes.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of three settlements in ongoing auto-parts price-fixing class actions.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of settlements with Hitachi (CDN$6,667,084), Autoliv (US$3.2 million), and Leoni (CDN$250,000), along with substantial cooperation from the defendants.

The court also considered certification for settlement purposes for the Occupant Safety Systems action against Autoliv and the Automotive Wire Harness Systems action against Leoni.

The court approved all settlements, finding them within a zone of reasonableness based on U.S. settlements, Canadian sales, and cooperation provided.

Additionally, class counsel's legal fees (25% of allocated settlement amounts) and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were approved, emphasizing the importance of robust contingency fee arrangements for access to justice.

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 and defendants both sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding an alleged global price-fixing conspiracy in the lithium-ion battery industry.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the denial of certification for claims relating to unlawful means conspiracy and umbrella purchasers.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the certification of the civil remedy claim under s. 36 of the Competition Act.

The Divisional Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions and that the issues merited appellate attention.

The defendants' motion for leave to appeal was denied, as they failed to establish conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The plaintiffs brought motions for settlement approval and fee approval in several class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The court certified the actions against Yazaki and Chiyoda for settlement purposes.

The court approved settlements with Yazaki and Chiyoda totaling over $11 million, noting that class counsel provided supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amounts fell within the zone of reasonableness.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee request.

In a proposed price-fixing class action involving lithium ion batteries, both sides brought refusals motions arising from cross-examinations conducted in advance of certification.

The court held that questions probing how class counsel came to act for the proposed representative plaintiffs, and requests for a retailer plaintiff’s business documents, were not relevant to the certification criteria.

However, questions to the plaintiffs’ expert about whether inclusion of contract phone purchasers complicated pass-through analysis were relevant to testing the expert’s methodology and had to be answered.

Questions to defence witnesses about alleged meetings and documents referenced in a related U.S. proceeding were refused as going to the merits rather than certification.

The moving party, a third-party subcontractor, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved a claim for damages resulting from severed power cables during demolition work.

The moving party argued that a full and final release barred the third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decision and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusion that a trial was required to determine the parties' intentions regarding the release.

Residents of a Toronto apartment building sought certification of a class action following a fire allegedly caused by negligent maintenance of electrical systems and smart meters.

The proposed class sued the building owner, property managers, superintendent, and the electricity distributor.

The electricity distributor opposed certification, arguing the claim failed to disclose a viable negligence cause of action and that the certification criteria were not met.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed a viable negligence claim against the distributor and that the statutory and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution did not negate the claim at the certification stage.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding with a modified class definition excluding residents operating marijuana grow‑ops in the building.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim brought a motion seeking declarations regarding her status as a shareholder and director of the plaintiff corporation following her termination without cause and the subsequent exercise of an option to purchase her shares.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking declarations that she had ceased to hold those positions.

The court interpreted the Unanimous Shareholder Agreement and found that the moving party and her family trust remain shareholders, and she remains a director, until the closing of the share transfer.

The court granted the requested declarations and ordered the plaintiff to provide access to corporate records.

The moving party sought court approval of a class action settlement alleging that the defendant utility breached s. 4 of the Interest Act by charging monthly interest on overdue accounts without disclosing the equivalent annual rate.

The proposed settlement provided approximately $5.8 million in compensation through refunds to certain class members, cancellation of excess interest charges, and cy près distributions to charitable organizations.

The court applied the established settlement approval criteria and concluded the agreement was fair, reasonable, and within the range of acceptable outcomes given litigation risks and administrative constraints.

The court also approved class counsel’s contingency fee of 25% of the recovery.

However, the request for a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff was denied because the circumstances did not meet the threshold of exceptional contribution.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim and to continue a stay of enforcement of a summary judgment obtained by the defendants in a related mortgage action.

The proposed amendments included allegations of forged documents by a former employee of the defendants in connection with investment transactions.

The court granted leave to amend, holding that limitation issues could be pleaded by the defendants and that the allegations were not clearly irrelevant or barred by res judicata.

However, applying Rule 20.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to continue a full stay of the prior judgment, finding only a tenuous connection between the investment claim and the mortgage debt, uncertainty about the merits and damages of the plaintiff’s claim, and potential prejudice to the defendants.

The stay was partially lifted, requiring payment of $400,000 toward the judgment.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that held a perpetual right to renew a supply of 5000 horsepower of electricity at a preferential rate remained extant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appeal judge failed to give adequate weight to the fact that the original 1928 agreement lapsed in 1987 due to the respondent's failure to give the required renewal notice.

The Court held that subsequent agreements did not revive the perpetual renewal provision, but merely provided a preferential price for a fixed term.