Linda J. Visser

A putative class action concerning allegations of systemic negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty in children's homes.

The defendants brought a pre-certification motion seeking production of the plaintiff's and supporting affiants' Children's Aid Society files, as well as alternative relief requesting that the applicable Children's Aid Societies produce the files of the supporting affiants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to establish that the Children's Aid Society files were necessary and relevant to the issues on certification.

The court emphasized the high burden on parties seeking production of child welfare files due to privacy protections and the statutory prohibitions under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court also clarified that in systemic negligence cases, certification can be determined without reference to individual class members' circumstances.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of $12,500.

This motion concerned the approval of several settlement agreements in ongoing automotive parts class actions, specifically with Mitsubishi Heavy, SKF, Brose, and Yamada.

The plaintiffs also sought approval for a distribution protocol for Automotive Bearings, Electric Powered Steering Assemblies, High Intensity Discharge Ballasts, and Manual Steering Columns actions, authorization for using previously produced customer information, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, use of residual wire harness funds, and class counsel's legal fees and disbursements.

The court granted all requests, finding the settlements and distribution protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and the requested fees and honoraria justified.

This appeal arose from the claims process of a class action settlement concerning price-fixing in the cathode ray tube (CRT) market.

The appellant, Class Action Capital Recovery LLC (CAC), a third-party claims filer, appealed the supervising judge's dismissal of its motion for directions regarding the reconsideration of rejected claims.

CAC argued that the Claims Administrator failed to follow a deficiency notice process as per the Distribution Protocol and that the supervising judge exceeded jurisdiction by effectively amending the protocol.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the supervising judge's order did not contemplate further deficiency notices and was within the broad discretionary power granted by section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, during the settlement administration stage.

The court also noted that the appeal constituted a collateral attack on an unappealed prior order.

This motion to quash, heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arose in the settlement administration phase of a class action concerning price-fixing of cathode ray tube products.

Class Counsel, representing the plaintiff Fanshawe College, sought to quash an appeal brought by Class Action Capital Recovery LLC (CAC), a third-party filer for claimants.

The grounds for the motion were that the Distribution Protocol prevented further appeals and that CAC lacked standing.

The Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, CAC had standing as an agent for its clients, and the appeal was not time-barred, as the appeal period began when the lower court's order achieved sufficient clarity.

The plaintiff in a class action sought court approval for a partial settlement agreement with the Kamaya defendants, who were accused of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy for linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment and cooperation benefits for the plaintiff class.

The court, applying principles from the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and relevant case law, found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the monetary amount being at the lower end of the reasonable zone.

The decision emphasized the value of arm's-length negotiation, counsel's recommendation, and the strategic benefits of early cooperation from settling defendants in complex conspiracy litigation.

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.

Two sets of appellants (manufacturers of optical disc drives) appealed the certification of a price-fixing class proceeding in British Columbia.

The majority held that the discoverability rule applies to extend the two-year limitation period in s. 36(4)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, that fraudulent concealment can toll a limitation period without requiring a special relationship between the parties, that umbrella purchasers (persons who bought from non-defendant manufacturers) have a cause of action under s. 36(1)(a), that s. 36(1) does not bar concurrent common law and equitable claims, and that a plaintiff's expert methodology need only establish that overcharges reached the indirect-purchaser level to certify loss as a common issue.

Côté J. dissented in part, finding that the discoverability rule does not apply to s. 36(4)(a)(i) and that umbrella purchasers have no cause of action under s. 36(1).

Both appeals were dismissed.

Appellants brought a proposed class action alleging that respondents conspired to divide the beer market contrary to section 45(1) of the Competition Act through a Framework Agreement signed in 2000, and that a surcharge levied by Brewers Retail on licensees violated the Liquor Control Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the regulated conduct defence was available to the respondents.

The Liquor Control Act authorized the impugned conduct.

The Ontario legislature subsequently enacted retroactive amendments in 2015 to remove any doubt that the conduct was authorized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the regulated conduct defence insulated the respondents from liability and that retroactive legislation could provide authorization for the defence.

The Plaintiffs, Khurram Shah and Alpina Holdings Inc., brought a competition law class action against numerous defendants concerning an alleged price-fixing conspiracy for Lithium Ion Battery Cells (LIBs).

This decision addresses the Plaintiffs' motion for court approval of settlement agreements reached with three groups of defendants: NEC Corporation and NEC Tokin Corporation (collectively 'NEC'), Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc. (collectively 'Samsung'), and Sony Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc., and Sony of Canada Ltd. (collectively 'Sony').

The Plaintiffs also sought approval of class counsel fees and disbursements related to these settlements.

The court reviewed the settlements for fairness, reasonableness, and best interests of the class, considering factors such as likelihood of success, counsel's recommendation, and absence of objections.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the requested contingency fees and disbursements.

The court approved all three settlement agreements and the requested class counsel fees and disbursements.

This appeal concerns the applicable test for determining jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants (AFCs) in a class action involving allegations of conspiracy to fix prices of air freight shipping services for shipments from or to Canada between 2000 and 2006.

The motion judge had rejected the real and substantial connection test and held that jurisdiction could only be established if AFCs were present in Ontario or had consented to the court's jurisdiction.

The motion judge also declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the real and substantial connection test applies to class actions involving AFCs and that jurisdiction may be established where there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter and Ontario, common issues exist between representative plaintiffs and AFCs, and procedural safeguards of adequate representation, notice, and opt-out rights are provided.

The court also found that forum non conveniens did not apply as no clearly more appropriate forum existed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a class action certification decision concerning alleged price-fixing of colour display tubes.

The motion for leave to appeal raised three main issues: whether an unlawful means conspiracy claim could be based on the Competition Act, whether "umbrella purchasers" had a viable cause of action, and whether the methodology for establishing class-wide harm met the "credible and plausible" standard.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of umbrella purchasers due to conflicting jurisprudence and concerns about indeterminate liability, but denied leave on the other two issues, finding the certification judge applied the correct test for common issues and that the Competition Act is not a complete code precluding common law claims.

The court approved a $7.5 million settlement in a national class action alleging defective organic roofing shingles manufactured and sold by the defendants.

The settlement provides compensation to class members based on a point system reflecting warranty benefits received and qualifying damage.

The court considered the likelihood of success, litigation duration, settlement terms, and objections, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite individual members' higher repair cost expectations.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved.

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 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 price-fixing conspiracy regarding lithium ion batteries.

Two foreign defendants, NEC Corporation and NEC Tokin Corporation, brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action against them for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case that the moving defendants carried on business in Ontario or committed the tort of conspiracy in Ontario, as there was no evidence that their batteries reached Ontario through normal channels of trade or that they participated in acts causing damage in Ontario.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Dow defendants for an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the market for polyether polyol products.

The court reviewed the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on indirect purchaser claims.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed with a plausible methodology for proving class-wide loss, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the plaintiff was a suitable representative.

The motion for certification was granted.

The moving party sought certification of a national class proceeding alleging that organic asphalt roofing shingles manufactured by the defendants were defective and prone to premature failure.

Claims were advanced in negligence and under various provincial consumer protection statutes, asserting that the shingles failed prematurely and exposed homeowners to risks such as water penetration, mould, and structural damage.

The defendants opposed certification on the grounds that the claim disclosed only pure economic loss, that no common defect existed across the products, and that individual remedies were preferable.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, that expert evidence provided some basis in fact for a common defect, and that the proposed class and common issues met the statutory requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

A class proceeding was found to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the efficiency of resolving common issues collectively.