L. Sokolov

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 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.

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.