Ted Brook

The representative plaintiff sought approval of a proposed settlement in a class action proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act.

The settlement involved claims that the defendant charged duplicative non-sufficient funds fees on pre-authorized debit transactions without proper disclosure.

The court approved a settlement fund of $7,050,000, with each of approximately 172,000 class members receiving an estimated $25 after deductions for counsel fees, taxes, disbursements, and funder's levy.

The court also approved class counsel fees and an honorarium of $5,000 to the representative plaintiff.

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.

The court considered a Rule 21 motion by Shell Canada Products and Tosh Skalosky to strike the claim against Skalosky personally.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead material facts supporting personal liability against Skalosky, as required by law.

The claim against Skalosky was struck, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their claim if they could plead sufficient facts.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The defendants in a class action brought a motion seeking the production of class counsel's redacted dockets to respond to the plaintiffs' costs submissions following certification.

The plaintiffs opposed the production.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the production of dockets to support costs submissions on a motion is only ordered in exceptional cases to protect solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the substantial amount of costs claimed, the disparity between the parties' costs, and alleged incongruities in the costs outline did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting production.

The plaintiffs moved for court approval of a proposed settlement in a class action against Symantec Corporation concerning defective NortonTM-branded security software.

The settlement, valued at approximately $21.7 million, includes cash payments, free licenses, and discount codes for 640,000 Ontario class members.

After 7 years of litigation, discovery, and mediations, the parties reached an arm's length agreement.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite a small number of objections.

The Superior Court of Justice approved identical third-party funding agreements in four related class actions against major Canadian banks.

The actions allege that the banks charged duplicative non-sufficient funds fees on single dishonoured pre-authorized debits.

The court, applying Section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found the agreements to be fair and reasonable, noting the staged success fee was comparable to or more advantageous than the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The court confirmed the agreements preserved plaintiff control over litigation, ensured the funder's financial capacity for adverse costs, and included appropriate confidentiality and deemed undertaking provisions.

The defendants took no position on the motions.

The plaintiff in a certified class action regarding unpaid statutory vacation and holiday pay moved to settle the Notice Plan and Notice of Certification.

The parties disagreed on the opt-out deadline, the contents of the opt-out affidavit, and the text of the Notice of Certification.

The court held that the opt-out deadline should be 60 days after the last notice is published and that the opt-out affidavit must identify the individuals who opted out.

However, the court rejected the defendants' proposed revisions to the Notice of Certification, finding them to be unnecessary, unfair, and potentially intimidating to class members.

The Notice of Certification was approved substantially in the form drafted by class counsel.

This motion concerned the substitution of a representative plaintiff in a class action alleging underpayment of vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation by RBC General Insurance Company and Aviva General Insurance Company.

The original proposed representative plaintiff, Deval Trivedi, was found to be statute-barred against Aviva General.

The plaintiff sought to substitute Binay Saroop as the representative plaintiff against Aviva General and to amend the statement of claim.

The court found that Saroop met the 'some basis in fact' test to rebut the statutory presumption regarding the limitation period and did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest, thus being an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion to substitute Saroop and amend the claim was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class proceeding against the defendant bank regarding its practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions.

The court reviewed the five-part test under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and that the other criteria including an identifiable class and common issues were met, the court granted the consent certification order.

Following the death of the judge who certified this national class action regarding vacation and public holiday pay, the parties could not agree on the terms of the certification order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to settle the order under rule 59.04(14).

The court settled the class definition start dates by applying the ultimate limitation periods for provinces that have them, and the basic limitation periods (adjusted for Covid-19 suspensions) for provinces that do not.

The court also compendiously restated the liability common issue to include unjust enrichment.

The proposed representative plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company for alleged failure to pay vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation to Property & Casualty Insurance Advisors.

The court granted certification against RBC IA, finding some basis in fact for the claims and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court found the proposed representative plaintiff's claim against Aviva General was presumptively statute-barred and conditionally certified the action against Aviva General, allowing 100 days to find a new representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action alleging that the defendant brokerage firm failed to provide vacation and public holiday pay to commissioned employees in breach of employment standards legislation.

The defendant argued that commissions continued to be paid while employees were on vacation and that the onus was on employees to prove non-payment.

The court found that the employer bears the burden of proving statutory payments were recorded and made, and that the absence of a class-wide system to record and report these obligations provided some evidence of commonality.

The court certified the class action, finding all requirements under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

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 court held a case conference to settle the terms of a certification order following a decision to certify a class action regarding alleged price-fixing of packaged bread.

The court reviewed competing draft orders and approved the producer defendants' draft with specific amendments, including adjustments to the definition of packaged bread, the class definition, and the retention of constructive trust as a common issue.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her Superior Court action against Canada Post Corporation and Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, which was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The Superior Court action alleged misconduct by the respondents in a Federal Court proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application of absolute privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings and the prohibition against collateral attack, finding no arguable merit to the appellant's grounds of appeal, including a recusal request.

This endorsement concerns the costs arising from successful summary judgment motions brought by Eaton Industries (Canada) Company and The Corporation of The City of London against Albert Bloom Limited (ABL).

The motions dismissed ABL's claims as statute-barred.

ABL conceded entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, alleging duplication and excessiveness, particularly given Eaton's prior cost award in a related third-party motion.

The court found the claimed costs reasonable, noting the significance of the litigation, Eaton's efforts to avoid duplication, and ABL's failure to disclose its own costs for comparison.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision.

The parties reached an agreement on costs, whereby the respondent, William O’Reilly, was ordered to pay $10,000 to the appellant, Tornado Medical Systems Inc., covering costs for both the appeal and the motion below.

No costs were payable by Dr. Jae Kim.

This appeal concerned the scope of common employer liability and director liability for unpaid wages under the Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge had found Tornado Medical Systems, Inc. liable as a common employer and Jae Kim liable as a director for unpaid wages and vacation pay.

The Court of Appeal allowed Tornado's appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in her articulation and application of the common employer doctrine by effectively finding liability based on corporate affiliation rather than an intention to create an employment relationship.

The Court dismissed Dr. Kim's appeal, but varied the judgment to make his director liability conditional on the statutory requirements of execution against the corporation being returned unsatisfied or corporate insolvency.

The London Transit Commission (LTC) appealed a motion judge's decision to strike its third-party claim against Eaton Industries (Canada) Company (Eaton) as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

LTC argued the motion judge erred in determining when it had actual or constructive knowledge of the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that LTC had actual or constructive knowledge of its claim against Eaton by May 22, 2013, and failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the contamination.

The court rejected LTC's arguments regarding a general rule for discoverability in environmental claims, continuing torts, and standalone claims, and declined to consider a new argument under the Environmental Protection Act.