Jessica Kimmel

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim against the defendant David Rosenkrantz, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against Rosenkrantz in his capacity as an officer and director of the Patica Companies, relating to a tax deferral arrangement.

The court found the pleadings lacked the necessary material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability, negligent misrepresentation, or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim and the related crossclaim against Rosenkrantz, but granted leave to amend.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market moved for approval of six settlements totaling $51.5 million.

The court reviewed the settlements in light of the estimated range of total damages, the litigation risks, and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

Finding the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlements.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

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.

The applicants sought approval of a sale of substantially all of their assets to a newly incorporated entity owned by their first lien lenders pursuant to a credit bid, effectively wiping out the second lien lenders.

RBC, a first and second lien lender, opposed certain ancillary relief.

The court approved the sale transaction, finding the pre-filing sales process reasonable under the Soundair principles and s. 36(3) of the CCAA.

However, the court declined to grant a broad third-party release by the first lien lenders, refused to bind RBC to a shareholders' agreement, and dismissed RBC's motions for pre-filing interest, fees, and a share of a consent fee.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.

In the context of the global insolvency of Nortel Networks, the UK Pension Claimants (UKPC) asserted multiple claims against the Canadian debtors (NNC and NNL).

The UKPC claimed for a contingent Financial Support Direction (FSD) under UK pension law, amounts under a Funding Guarantee and a Swift Guarantee, and remedies for oppression and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the FSD claim as too remote and speculative to constitute a provable claim in the CCAA proceedings.

The court also dismissed the claims under the Swift Guarantee, oppression, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court allowed the UKPC's claim under the Funding Guarantee, finding NNL liable for £339.75 million.

Two related applications arose from a commercial arbitration concerning a Liquidity Payment obligation under a financing arrangement between a dairy company and a pension fund.

The moving party sought to set aside a final arbitral award under s. 46(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging breaches of procedural fairness and arguing the arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was unreasonable.

The court held the arbitration process was fair, the parties had adequate opportunity to present their cases, and the arbitrator’s interpretation of the Liquidity Payment Agreement was consistent with its plain language.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed.

The responding party’s application to enforce the arbitral award and supplementary costs award was granted, with interest fixed at 3% in accordance with the contract and applicable statutory rates.

Following the dismissal of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The defendants had succeeded on one of four principal issues, resulting in partial success that justified a reduction in the plaintiff’s recoverable costs.

The court considered the proportional success of the parties and the relative time and resources expended by counsel.

Applying reductions for both partial success and excessive docketed time, the court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable amount under Rule 57.01.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a commercial action alleging defective raw materials supplied for thermoplastic piping systems.

They argued the claims under an earlier supply agreement were barred by the Limitations Act and that liability disclaimers in later agreements excluded all contractual and tort liability.

The court held the limitation period for the indemnity claim had not expired because the claim arose only after the plaintiff was served with underlying litigation relating to the alleged defects.

While the contractual disclaimers were sufficient to exclude liability for negligence, they did not clearly exclude the statutorily implied condition of fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act.

The court also found that alleged post‑contractual conduct potentially modifying the agreements raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was therefore refused and the action allowed to proceed.