Louis Charles Sokolov

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the FX Market brought a motion to certify the action for settlement purposes and approve settlements with four groups of defendants (Barclays, HSBC, RBS, and Standard Chartered PLC).

The court reviewed the motion record and found that all criteria for certification under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied, even with a less rigorous application in a settlement context.

The motion was granted, certifying the action for settlement purposes and approving the settlements.

This class action involved two motions: approval of three settlements totaling $39.2 million in an FX market price-fixing conspiracy case, and approval of Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the stage of the proceedings.

However, the court partially denied Class Counsel's request for $9.8 million in fees, approving only an additional $2 million, citing that the achieved recovery (5 cents on the dollar against a potential $1 billion loss) was respectable but not "very good" and that the claimed litigation risks were somewhat exaggerated given prior regulatory findings and U.S. settlements.

The court emphasized the need for diligence in approving contingency fees in settlements to ensure they are provident for class members, not just counsel.

Joyce Bernstein, the successful plaintiff in a class action certification motion against Peoples Trust Company and Peoples Card Services LLP, sought costs of $146,492.72.

Peoples Trust disputed the amount, arguing for divided success due to a reduced class period based on limitation periods, and proposed $120,000 with a portion payable in the cause.

The court awarded the full amount sought by Bernstein but ordered $10,000 of it to be payable in the cause.

The court found no divided success on the certification motion itself but deemed the plaintiff's failure to concede the limitation period issue as conduct that unnecessarily lengthened proceedings, warranting a small portion of costs to be payable in the cause as a salutary message against over-pleading in class actions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding prepaid payment cards.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05 by charging illegal fees and imposing expiry dates on the cards.

The defendants argued that the cards were exempt from the legislation.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the five-part test for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and certified the action as a class proceeding, subject to an adjustment to the class definition to account for the limitation period.

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 plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the defendant employer for unpaid overtime.

The proposed class included non-management employees subject to the defendant's overtime policy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed valid causes of action in breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The court certified the action, finding that there was an identifiable class, common issues regarding systemic practices and aggregate damages, that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and that the plaintiff was an appropriate representative.

The appellant brought a class action alleging that Bell Mobility improperly collected unused funds from prepaid wireless accounts when customers failed to top up before the end of the active period.

The appellant argued that Bell breached its contract by claiming funds on the first day after the active period ended, and alternatively, that the Gift Card Regulation under the Consumer Protection Act prohibited expiry dates on prepaid phone cards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the contract clearly stipulated expiration at the end of the active period.

The Court also held that the Gift Card Regulation prohibits expiry dates on the future performance of an agreement, not on the duration of the service itself, meaning Bell fully performed its obligation by providing access to its network for the agreed-upon period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought approval of a revised settlement in a class action regarding unpaid bank overtime.

The original settlement's claims process encountered difficulties, leading to a revised agreement where the defendant bank would pay an additional $20.6 million, bringing the total payout to $39.3 million.

The court approved the revised settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite some objections regarding the compensation bands.

The court also approved $2.3 million in legal fees for class counsel.

The franchisor appealed a motion judge's decision finding it breached the duty of fair dealing under s. 3 of the Arthur Wishart Act by failing to disclose that it did not receive significant volume rebates.

The motion judge had read language into a certified common issue without notice to the parties.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by effectively amending the common issue and by concluding that the alleged non-disclosure constituted a breach of the duty of fair dealing in the performance of the franchise agreement.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the dismissal of its motion to add a new common issue was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a $200 million class action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $154,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued for a maximum of $60,000, citing the brevity of the hearing and the novelty and public interest of the issues under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court rejected the public interest argument but acknowledged some novelty in the interpretation of the Gift Card Regulation.

Costs were fixed at $110,000 all-inclusive, payable by the plaintiff.

On cross-motions for summary judgment in a certified class proceeding, the court determined common issues concerning prepaid wireless top-up balances and the Gift Card Regulation.

Applying modern contractual interpretation principles, the court held the agreements required subscribers to top up within the active period, with unused balances expiring at the end of that period and being forfeitable on the following day.

The court also held that the Gift Card Regulation applies only to gift cards as commonly understood, namely cards acquired as gifts for third parties, and not to prepaid wireless top-ups generally purchased for personal use.

Even where a prepaid phone card was purchased as a gift, there was no breach because the PIN receipts themselves had no expiry date.

The common issues were answered in favour of the defendant and the action was, in essence, dismissed.

On cross-motions for summary judgment in a certified class proceeding, the court determined common issues concerning prepaid wireless top-up balances and the Gift Card Regulation.

Applying modern contractual interpretation principles, the court held the agreements required subscribers to top up within the active period, with unused balances expiring at the end of that period and being forfeitable on the following day.

The court also held that the Gift Card Regulation applies only to gift cards as commonly understood, namely cards acquired as gifts for third parties, and not to prepaid wireless top-ups generally purchased for personal use.

Even where a prepaid phone card was purchased as a gift, there was no breach because the PIN receipts themselves had no expiry date.

The common issues were answered in favour of the defendant and the action was, in essence, dismissed.

In this franchise class proceeding, the plaintiff moved to amend its pleading to add a new common issue alleging failures to disclose the franchisor's purchasing power and the insignificant nature of supplier volume discounts.

The court held there was no tenable basis for a generalized purchasing-power allegation, but found an arguable and in part compelling complaint concerning the non-disclosure of the virtual non-existence of meaningful volume discounts, particularly under s. 3 of the Arthur Wishart Act.

The motion to amend was nevertheless dismissed because, in the unusual procedural circumstances, allowing the amendment after the summary judgment hearing would cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The court then answered deferred common issues by holding that the franchisor had breached its s. 3 duty of good faith and fair dealing in failing to disclose whether significant volume rebates were received, and the amounts received, retained, or shared, while reserving damages for further submissions.

The applicant sought several forms of relief in connection with the assessment of a law firm's account, including a declaration regarding whether a negligence finding at assessment would be res judicata, a ruling on the admissibility of surreptitious audio recordings, and an order requiring the assessment to proceed before a judge rather than an Assessment Officer.

The court found the res judicata issue moot because no negligence action had been commenced and the limitation period had expired.

Allegations of administrative delays and errors in the assessment office did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting transfer of the assessment to a judge.

The court ordered the matter to proceed before an Assessment Officer and required the applicant to disclose complete audio recordings rather than edited excerpts.

No costs were awarded.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to strike a statement of claim alleging negligence and breach of contract arising from representation of the plaintiff in a criminal trial that resulted in convictions.

The plaintiffs alleged that but for trial counsel’s negligent conduct they would have obtained an acquittal.

The court held that allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel must be addressed through the criminal appeal process rather than through a collateral civil proceeding challenging the validity of the conviction.

Because the plaintiff’s appeal had already been dismissed and the ineffective assistance ground abandoned, allowing the civil claim would constitute an impermissible collateral attack and abuse of process.

The statement of claim was therefore struck without leave to amend.

The defendant applied for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding regarding breach of contract claims related to prepaid phone card expiry dates.

The court applied the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's order.

The court emphasized that the Class Proceedings Act is remedial and that the certification judge appropriately addressed the commonality of the systemic practices.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following a certification decision in a proposed consumer class action concerning prepaid phone cards, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $204,000 in partial indemnity costs after succeeding on certification of most proposed common issues.

The court reviewed the costs outline, reduced counsel hourly rates to align with the Rules Committee’s Information to the Profession, and removed an excessive research disbursement.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, historical certification-motion cost averages, and proportionality principles tied to access to justice under the Class Proceedings Act, the court fixed costs at $150,000 all-inclusive payable forthwith by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a class action and approval of a settlement agreement regarding the defendant's sale of daily deal vouchers with allegedly illegal expiration dates.

The court found that the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act were met and that the settlement, which established a $535,000 fund, was fair and reasonable.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $235,000, noting that while pre-allocated fees require strict scrutiny, the amount was justified given the significant non-monetary value of the settlement to the class.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment dismissing their action against a lawyer who received their cheque in trust for his client.

They argued the lawyer knew or ought to have known they relied on him to ensure the funds were disbursed in a particular manner.

The court held there was no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s factual findings that no such reliance was known or reasonably knowable to the lawyer, and that there was no evidence the monies were paid out for any unauthorized purpose.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Bell Mobility regarding the expiry dates on pre-paid phone cards.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the Gift Card Regulation under the Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and unfair practices.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, but not for unfair practices.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, appointed the plaintiff as the representative, created a sub-class for consumer-users, and certified five common issues.