Kyle R. Taylor

The court approved a $500 million settlement in a national class action concerning a price-fixing conspiracy in the packaged bread market, resolving claims against Loblaw Companies Limited and related entities.

The settlement includes a substantial damages payment, a distribution protocol for class members, and a cooperation agreement by Loblaw to assist in ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

The court also approved class counsel fees and the payout to a third-party funder, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

This decision concerns a motion for pre-approval of a settlement in a national class action alleging price fixing in the packaged bread market in Canada.

The Ontario plaintiffs reached a $500 million settlement in principle with several defendants, including Loblaw Companies Limited and George Weston Limited, subject to court approval in both Ontario and Quebec.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-out and objection procedures, and the appointment of a settlement administrator, and set a hearing date for final approval.

The order amends the class definition and certification for settlement purposes only, and provides for the administration and notice of the settlement to class members.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding a failure to plead material facts for a reasonable cause of action and an insufficient evidentiary basis for common issues.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the claim lacked material facts to support a Canadian conspiracy and that there was no sufficient factual basis for the proposed common issues, particularly given the distinct Canadian and U.S. tuna markets.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the lower court's order effectively ended the proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against Binance for illegal sales of cryptocurrency derivative products without registration or prospectus, contrary to the Ontario Securities Act and common law.

The court granted certification, finding a recognizable cause of action, an identifiable class, and common issues suitable for class-wide determination, including liability and remedies like rescission and aggregate damages.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the mechanical impossibility of rescission and the unfeasibility of aggregate damages, noting a lack of factual basis for their claims of user-to-user contracts.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) to fund a class action against the defendants.

The court examined the LFA under section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, assessing whether it was in the best interests of the class, furthered access to justice, was not champertous, and did not interfere with the lawyer-client relationship.

The court found the LFA fair, reasonable, and compliant with statutory requirements, noting the funder's financial capacity and undertaking for costs.

The motion was granted, and an order was also made designating class counsel and precluding similar actions without notice and leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash an appeal of a class certification order in a price-fixing conspiracy case involving packaged bread.

The plaintiffs (appellants) argued the certification order, which defined the class, effectively dismissed claims of excluded persons and was thus a final order appealable under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants (moving parties) contended it was a certification order governed by the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) and that, under the CPA's transitional provisions, the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court found the certification order was a procedural order, not a final one, as it did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Consequently, the appeal provisions of the CPA applied.

Furthermore, the court determined that the pre-2020 amendments to the CPA governed the appeal because the original proceeding was commenced before the amendments came into force.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was therefore quashed.

The plaintiff in two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the canned tuna industry brought a motion for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement.

The plaintiff could not bear the financial burden of funding the required expert evidence.

After extensive negotiations and due diligence, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Lake Whillans Fund.

The court applied the four-factor test for approving third-party funding agreements and found the agreement to be necessary for access to justice, fair, reasonable, and protective of the defendants' interests.

The motion to approve the funding agreement was granted.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the defendants' joint motion to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, having successfully defended the motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the motion was largely duplicative of a prior, successful motion to strike the original statement of claim.

The court determined that while the subject matter overlapped, the motion against the amended pleading did not constitute a "serial attack" justifying substantial indemnity costs.

Instead, costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $17,404.18 (including fees, HST, and disbursements), payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

The defendants brought a joint motion to strike out the amended statement of claim without leave to amend, and for an order dismissing the action, alleging insufficient material facts to support claims of misappropriation and misuse of confidential information.

The court reviewed the amended pleading against its prior decision, which had struck the original statement of claim with leave to amend due to vagueness.

The court found that the amended statement of claim sufficiently particularized the types of confidential information, the products to which they related, and the alleged instances and methods of misappropriation and misuse by each defendant, satisfying the minimum level of material fact disclosure required for such claims.

The motion was dismissed.

Class members who are not representative plaintiffs have no direct right of appeal from an order approving a settlement in a certified class action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the decision in Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada remains good law and has not been superseded by subsequent decisions.

A settlement approval order is neither a judgment on common issues nor a determination of aggregate damages, and therefore class members cannot seek leave to appeal under section 30(5) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Permitting individual class members to appeal settlement approvals would introduce uncertainty into settlement negotiations, undermine the authority of representative plaintiffs and class counsel, and impede the resolution of class actions.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, with leave to amend.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the claims were baseless and important to their reputations.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

Instead, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale to both groups of defendants, fixing specific amounts for fees and disbursements, emphasizing that costs are not a mechanical exercise and must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiffs, Evertz Technologies Limited and Evertz Microsystems Limited, brought an action alleging theft of confidential information by former employees and competing businesses.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim in its entirety, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding the alleged confidential information, its misuse, and its incorporation into the defendants' products.

The court found that the statement of claim, even with supplemental particulars, did not meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure required for claims of misappropriation and misuse of confidential information.

Consequently, the statement of claim was struck out, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to serve an amended statement of claim within 30 days.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.