Louis Charles Sokolov

In a class proceeding concerning post‑retirement benefits, the defendant brought a motion to strike certain financial statements from affidavit evidence.

The issue was whether the employer’s 1994 and 1995 financial statements qualified as “additional common documents” because they were widely distributed to class members and respected post‑retirement benefits.

The court held that the statements were widely distributed because annual reports were regularly provided or made available to employees.

The court also interpreted the term “respecting” broadly, finding that financial statements referring to post‑retirement benefit liabilities satisfied the requirement.

The motion to strike the documents was dismissed.

Following the Court of Appeal’s reversal of a certification order in a proposed class action alleging misclassification of supervisors and unpaid overtime under the Canada Labour Code, the motion judge was directed to fix the defendant’s costs of the certification motion.

The defendant sought over $1 million in partial indemnity costs, arguing that it had achieved complete success and that the litigation involved substantial complexity and financial exposure.

The representative plaintiff and the Law Foundation argued that costs should be nominal or substantially reduced because the proceeding raised novel legal issues and public interest considerations under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Applying issue estoppel arising from the Court of Appeal’s reasons and considering the purposes of class action costs, the court fixed costs at $475,000 all inclusive.

In a proposed consumer class proceeding, the defendant sought directions permitting a summary judgment motion to be heard before the certification motion and sought leave to file a sur‑reply pleading.

The court considered the case management discretion under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the general principle that certification should normally be the first substantive motion.

The proposed summary judgment motion would not dispose of the entire proceeding and would likely delay certification and increase costs.

The court held that efficiency favored addressing certification first and declined to schedule the summary judgment motion or the proposed sur‑reply motion before certification.

The parties were directed to agree on a timetable leading to certification.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class action alleging copyright infringement against a legal publisher that reproduced lawyers’ court documents within an electronic research database without express permission.

The defendants argued the claim conflicted with the open court principle, lacked common issues, and would be unmanageable due to questions of originality, authorship, client participation, and solicitor‑client privilege.

The court held that the certification threshold is procedural and low under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and that several systemic questions about the defendant’s conduct and defences, including fair dealing, implied consent, and public policy, were capable of common resolution.

Although issues such as authorship, ownership, and damages would require individual determinations, the court concluded these did not preclude certification.

The proposed class was narrowed to lawyers and paralegals in private practice, and the action was certified with modified common issues.