Louis Charles Sokolov

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.

The appellants, representing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, challenged two municipal by-laws passed by the City of Brantford to prohibit unauthorized interference with development and the imposition of unauthorized fees.

The appellants argued the by-laws were passed in bad faith, violated the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, infringed sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter, and were ultra vires the province under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal, finding the by-laws were validly passed and did not target the Haudenosaunee.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the words 'invite', 'request', and 'sign' from the by-laws as they unjustifiably limited freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The plaintiff class, comprising salaried and executive retirees of General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), brought a class action alleging that GMCL breached its contracts by reducing post-retirement health care and life insurance benefits.

On motions for partial summary judgment, the court held that the reservation of rights clauses in the benefit documents for salaried employees were ambiguous and did not clearly permit GMCL to reduce benefits after the employees had retired.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, including contra proferentem and the duty of good faith, the court found GMCL breached its contracts with the salaried retirees, including new hires and early retirees.

However, the court found that the reservation of rights clause for executive retirees was clear and unambiguous, allowing GMCL to reduce their benefits.

The applicant municipality successfully obtained an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from blockading various development sites and successfully defended a motion to quash its by-laws.

The applicant subsequently sought its costs of the proceedings.

The respondents argued they were public interest litigants and that costs should be in the cause or paid by the province.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the respondents' unlawful conduct necessitated the litigation and they were not acting in the public interest.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $350,000, significantly reducing the $887,000 claimed due to duplication, excessive time, and the exclusion of costs for a court-ordered consultation process.

The defendant employer appealed an order of a Master requiring production of internal corporate documents and refusing to strike certain documents from the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion record in a certified class action concerning post‑retirement employee benefits.

The court interpreted the certification order and settlement agreement governing the litigation, which restricted discovery and admissible documents to “common documents” shared with class members or historical versions of benefits plan documents.

The Master erred by applying a general relevance test rather than the contractual limitations agreed upon by the parties.

Internal board minutes, memoranda, and corporate financial statements were not “common documents” or historical plan documents because they were not shared with employees as part of the benefits package.

The appeal was allowed, the production order was set aside, and the impugned materials were struck from the motion record.

The plaintiff, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, sought to convert an interim injunction into a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant truck drivers from picketing and blockading its Vaughan Intermodal Terminal.

The defendants, who were independent contractors for trucking companies serving CPR, had been protesting pay cuts.

Following reports of vandalism and safety concerns, the court found that the plaintiff met the test for an injunction and ordered that the existing interlocutory injunction be made permanent pending trial.

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.

The plaintiff in a class action regarding post-retirement benefits brought a motion for the production of historical benefits plan documents, including corporate minutes and resolutions concerning the creation of the benefits plans.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike certain documents from the plaintiff's affidavit.

The court interpreted the Settlement Agreement between the parties and found that the requested corporate minutes and resolutions fell within the definition of 'historical benefits plan documents' as they were relevant to the objective determination of the contractual terms.

The court ordered the defendant to produce the documents and dismissed the motion to strike.

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.

The applicant filed applications alleging a breach of settlement by the respondent.

The respondent argued it was ready to implement the settlement but the applicant had breached confidentiality provisions and engaged in an abuse of process through a campaign of harassment and threats.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and her spouse were bound by the confidentiality provisions and that their threats to reveal the settlement terms, along with abusive communications, constituted an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction prohibiting future conduct outside its process.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to implement the settlement and confirmed the applicant and her spouse's ongoing confidentiality obligations.

Following the successful appeal by the defendant overturning the certification of a proposed class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $300,000.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued that no costs or a maximum of $50,000 should be awarded, citing the novel legal issues and public interest nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the novel points of law and access to justice considerations under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but held that the Act does not insulate representative plaintiffs from adverse costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $60,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant alleged a breach of settlement of a prior human rights application and subsequently sought to set aside the settlement agreement, alleging misconduct by her former counsel and the respondent.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration of a prior interim decision because it was not a final decision.

The Tribunal granted the former counsel's request to intervene to respond to the allegations of misconduct.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to defer the application pending a newly commenced civil proceeding, noting the advanced stage of the Tribunal matter and potential procedural issues in the civil action.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant railway company misclassified first line supervisors as managerial employees to avoid paying overtime under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge certified the action but significantly redrafted the common issues, rejecting the plaintiff's proposed misclassification issue due to a lack of commonality.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge correctly rejected the misclassification issue because individualized assessments of job duties were required.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in certifying a reframed common issue about the minimum requirements for managerial status, as it suffered from the same lack of commonality.

The certification order was set aside.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action on behalf of CIBC customer service employees for unpaid overtime.

The motion judge and Divisional Court had found it plain and obvious that CIBC's policy requiring pre-approval for overtime complied with the Canada Labour Code, and that individual issues predominated.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was arguable the pre-approval requirement violated the Code's mandate to pay for overtime 'required or permitted' by the employer.

The Court also found some basis in fact that CIBC's systemic practices breached employment contracts, satisfying the common issues requirement for certification.

The representative plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the defendant bank for unpaid overtime, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence due to systemic policies requiring pre-approval for overtime and inadequate record-keeping.

The motion judge certified the action, and the Divisional Court upheld the certification.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the certification of most common issues and agreed that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the common issue regarding the aggregate assessment of damages under s. 24(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, finding that damages could not reasonably be calculated without proof by individual class members.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The court applied the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

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.

The representative plaintiffs in a certified class action regarding the Canada Life Canadian Employees' Pension Plan moved for approval of a settlement agreement, a variation of trust, and class counsel fees.

The claims involved the ownership of surplus assets, partial wind-ups, and the payment of plan expenses from the fund.

The settlement provided an estimated $54 million in financial benefits to class members, including surplus distribution and contribution holidays.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the legal risks associated with the claims.

The court also approved the variation of the pension trust under the Variation of Trusts Act and the rule in Saunders v. Vautier, distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Buschau because the employer supported the variation.

Finally, the court approved class counsel fees of approximately $4.8 million as fair and reasonable given the results achieved and the risks undertaken.