Louis Charles Sokolov

Class counsel moved for approval of an interim fee award and disbursements following a $250,000 settlement with the Bank of Montreal defendants in a class action.

The court reviewed the requested fees of $62,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $119,800.83, plus taxes.

Applying the factors for assessing the reasonableness of class counsel fees, the court found the request fair and reasonable and approved the fee award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a settlement with the Bank of Montreal (BMO) defendants in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement amount was $250,000.

The court found that the case against BMO was significantly weaker than against other defendants, as BMO's trading operations accounted for less than 1% of the market and no regulatory findings had been made against it.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved the settlement agreement.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totaling $1,391,715.45 following a successful, but partially limited, certification motion in a class action against several financial institutions.

The Defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing their substantial success in narrowing the class definition and potential double recovery from prior settlements.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in legal fees and HST, payable forthwith, and ordered disbursements of $468,705.06 payable in the cause.

The reduction in fees reflected the Defendants' success in streamlining the class action and reducing their potential liability, which the court deemed important for the integrity of the class actions regime and to discourage overambitious claims, without constituting a distributive costs award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

The defendant, Richard Joseph Paul Bourdeau, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of solicitor negligence.

The plaintiffs, Leslie and Theresa Sosnowski, alleged negligence regarding advice on a wrongful dismissal limitation period and ineffective assistance of counsel during a criminal trial.

The court found no duty of care for wrongful dismissal advice, as the plaintiff had retained separate employment counsel.

Regarding the criminal trial, the court determined that the Court of Appeal's acquittal was based on trial judge errors, not the defendant's performance, and the plaintiffs failed to provide expert evidence on the standard of care.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against Bourdeau.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on the liability common issues in a class action for unpaid overtime on behalf of customer service employees of the defendant bank.

The court found that the bank's overtime policies, which required pre-approval, and its failure to record actual hours worked, violated the Canada Labour Code.

The court concluded that the bank permitted uncompensated overtime by failing to prevent it, thereby breaching its statutory and contractual duties to the class members.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a $19,000,000 settlement in a class action regarding unpaid overtime, as well as a distribution protocol and class counsel fees of 33%.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist in assessing the reasonableness of the settlement and fees.

Finding the settlement to be a rational compromise based on expert analysis of electronic timekeeping data, and the contingency fee to be consistent with similar class proceedings, the court approved the settlement, distribution protocol, and class counsel fees.

Following a summary judgment in a class action regarding prepaid payment cards, the court determined the appropriate prejudgment and postjudgment interest to be awarded to the plaintiff class.

The court deferred the determination of a distribution protocol pending the resolution of the defendants' appeal and the plaintiff's cross-appeal.

The court awarded $1,233,753 in prejudgment interest and ordered postjudgment interest at a rate of 3.0% per annum on the total award of $18,063,753.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $5.47 million 'ice breaker' settlement with the Deutsche Bank defendants in two proposed class actions alleging price-fixing in the international gold and silver markets.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable despite the $1 billion damages claim, because the settlement amount was consistent with parallel U.S. settlements and the non-monetary cooperation from Deutsche Bank was of inestimable value.

The court also approved class counsel's request for an interim fee award of a 25% contingency fee plus disbursements, noting that such awards promote early settlement and lessen the financial burden on class counsel in complex conspiracy cases.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action against the defendants for charging illegal fees and imposing expiry dates on prepaid payment cards, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05.

The court found that the defendants' Single Load Prepaid (SLP) cards were 'open loop gift cards' subject to the legislation, while their General Purpose Reloadable (GPR) cards were exempt as financial products.

The court granted summary judgment for the SLP cardholders, awarding $15,330,000 in aggregate damages for unlawful fees and seized balances, plus $1,500,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' intentional disregard of consumer protection laws.

This endorsement addresses a motion in a class proceeding for approval of the notice to class members regarding a proposed settlement and class counsel's fees and disbursements.

The court approved the notice and, recognizing the challenges of assessing unopposed fee applications, decided to appoint an amicus curiae to assist in evaluating the reasonableness of class counsel's fees and disbursements.

Directions were provided for serving materials on the appointed amicus.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order approving a settlement reached with the defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Canada Limited in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement requires the settling defendants to pay USD$2.3 million and provide cooperation in the ongoing prosecution against the remaining defendants.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was in line with previously approved settlements in the proceeding.

The settlement and the previously approved distribution protocol were approved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against Morgan Stanley regarding alleged price-fixing in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that the criteria may be less rigorously applied in a settlement context.

The court approved the settlement agreement, which included a payment of USD$2.3 million by the settling defendant.

This is a costs endorsement following the release of reasons in an appeal.

The respondents advised that the court had misapprehended the appellants' oral costs submissions regarding quantum.

The parties were permitted to provide further written submissions on the costs issue.

The court affirmed its costs order for the appeal but altered the costs of the motion below, reducing the amounts payable by Bank of Montreal and Toronto Dominion Bank.

This motion concerned the approval of an Administration Protocol and a Distribution Protocol for the net proceeds of court-approved settlements in an ongoing class action alleging a conspiracy among financial institutions to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The court reviewed the proposed protocols, which differentiated between direct and indirect claimants, allocated funds (80% direct, 20% indirect), and incorporated expert analysis for damage calculation, conversion ratios, and liquidity factors.

The court found the protocols to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, approving them without objection.

This is a counsel fee approval motion in an ongoing competition law class action.

Class counsel sought approval for an additional $13.7 million in fees, bringing the total to approximately $19.7 million, representing an 18.5% contingency fee or a 3.8 multiplier on docketed time, based on $107 million in settlements achieved to date.

The court considered factors such as risk, complexity, skill, and results, and assessed the degree of success as 19% of the estimated damages.

The court found the requested fee to be unreasonable and reduced the additional fee to $7 million, resulting in a total fee of $13 million, representing a 12% contingency fee or a 2.5 multiplier.

The court emphasized the need to balance incentives for class counsel with the access to justice principles of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and to avoid overcompensating counsel, which could disincentivize further robust litigation against non-settling defendants.

The appellants sought to add Toronto Dominion Bank and Bank of Montreal as defendants to an existing class action alleging a secret conspiracy to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the claim against the respondents was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by establishing too high an evidentiary threshold and by finding that the respondents' identities could have been discovered with reasonable diligence without proper evidentiary foundation.

The court held that the appellants provided a reasonable explanation for why they could not have identified the respondents before the limitation period expired, and that the issue of due diligence should be determined on a summary judgment motion or at trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to add BMO and TD as defendants to a class action regarding an alleged price-fixing conspiracy, BMO and TD sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded because the issue of discoverability in conspiracy claims was novel, or alternatively, that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding that the issue was not legally novel and the costs claimed were reasonable, especially given the plaintiffs' own estimated costs.

BMO was awarded $99,724.96 and TD was awarded $95,908.69.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add BMO and TD as defendants.

The proposed defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed they only discovered the involvement of BMO and TD after receiving a proffer of evidence from a settling defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the claims against BMO and TD before the expiry of the limitation period.

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.