Luciana P. Brasil

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 31, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The applicants, claimants under a Hepatitis C class action settlement, sought leave to sue the settlement administrator, Crawford & Company (Canada) Inc., for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

They alleged mismanagement of the Past Economic Loss and Dependents Fund (PELD Fund) and misleading advice regarding compensation options, which resulted in them receiving only a pro-rata share of their approved compensation.

The court granted leave, applying the "reasonable possibility of success" test.

It found that the proposed claims, if proven, demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success for all three causes of action.

The court distinguished the case from prior decisions denying leave, emphasizing that the allegations pertained to the administrator's conduct in providing advice while aware of fund insolvency, rather than merely challenging compensation calculations.

Arguments regarding release and limitation periods were dismissed as premature at this stage.

This endorsement concerns the approval of an amended distribution protocol for a certified and settled class action against Robert Bosch GmbH.

Due to a larger-than-anticipated residue in the settlement fund, the Representative Plaintiffs requested a revised protocol to distribute the remaining funds pro-rata among direct benefit claimants who had cashed their cheques.

The court approved the proposed distribution, including a final distribution of any remaining residue to the Law Foundation of Ontario’s Access to Justice Fund.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by defendants seeking to hold litigation lenders liable for costs incurred by a class member (Mr. Zuber) who pursued an exaggerated damages claim and incurred substantial debt from litigation loans.

The trial judge had refused to order the lenders to pay costs, finding they did not instigate or control the litigation in a manner amounting to an abuse of process, despite the onerous interest rates and the loans impeding settlement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, reiterating that non-party costs are limited to "person of straw" or abuse of process scenarios, neither of which applied to the lenders' conduct.

The court also refused leave to cross-appeal the trial judge's decision not to award costs of the motion to the lenders, finding no error in principle.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and a representative plaintiff honorarium following the settlement of two national class proceedings (2012 and 2016 Actions) against various defendants, including Apple Inc., for an alleged eBook price-fixing conspiracy.

The aggregate settlement amount was $15,175,000.

Class Counsel sought $2.7 million in fees (25% of the Apple settlement, adjusted for Quebec) and $43,669.39 in disbursements, plus a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court addressed whether the Class Proceedings Act is a complete code for fee approval, the applicability of the Solicitors Act and its regulations regarding costs and disbursements in "all-in" settlements, and the treatment of notional cost contributions and administration costs.

The court found that the Solicitors Act provisions regarding costs and disbursements should apply harmoniously to class proceedings.

It ruled that disbursements should be deducted from the gross settlement amount, and a notional contribution to costs ($500,000) should be applied before calculating counsel fees.

Settlement administration costs were deemed not a disbursement incurred by counsel.

The court approved class counsel fees of $2,450,000 plus taxes, disbursements of $43,669.39 plus taxes, and an honorarium of $2,500 for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a settlement agreement with the remaining bank defendants in a national class action alleging a conspiracy to fix credit card merchant discount fees.

A joint virtual hearing was held with judges from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement, adopting the reasons of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against five settling bank defendants in a long-running price-fixing conspiracy case regarding credit card merchant discount fees.

The court found that the five requirements for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied.

The court certified the action against the settling defendants for the purpose of implementing the settlement agreement and approved the notice and plan of dissemination.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a US$7 million settlement with the Bosch defendants regarding the installation of 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles, as well as approval of class counsel's legal fees.

The settlement targeted 'leftover damages' for class members who were not made whole under previous settlements with the vehicle manufacturers.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the pragmatic distribution protocol and the low number of objections.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee, finding it presumptively valid and noting that the distribution mechanism would ensure high take-up by eligible claimants.

A land surveying company brought a class action on behalf of Ontario land surveyors whose plans of survey had been digitized, stored, and copied by the province's electronic land registry service provider without payment of royalties.

The appellant argued that Crown copyright under s. 12 of the Copyright Act did not vest in the registered and deposited plans.

The majority held that the comprehensive provincial land registration regime gave the Crown complete control over the publication process, satisfying the requirements of s. 12.

A concurring minority agreed on the outcome but adopted a different interpretive framework, requiring both that the work be published 'by or under the direction or control' of the Crown and that the work qualify as a 'government work' serving a public purpose.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the representative plaintiffs in a settlement-approved class action, the defendants sought costs of $17,840 on a partial indemnity basis, requesting they be paid personally by class counsel.

Class counsel argued that awarding costs against them personally would undermine access to justice.

The court held that the defendants' request for costs against class counsel personally was improper, as class counsel was not a party and had committed no misconduct.

However, the court also rejected class counsel's access to justice arguments, finding that the representative plaintiffs, as the losing parties, were responsible for costs in the normal course.

Costs of $17,840 were awarded to the defendants, payable by the representative plaintiffs.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing no reasonable cause of action, lack of standing for the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, and that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought declarations of systemic sex discrimination by the London Police Service in investigating sexual assault complaints and an order for a court-supervised external review.

The court allowed the motion in part, affirming that the claim was not plainly and obviously bound to fail and that the Clinic had public interest standing.

However, several paragraphs of the statement of claim were struck for pleading evidence or being vexatious and inflammatory.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against National Bank, Visa, and Mastercard for settlement purposes.

The action alleges the defendants conspired to fix or increase Merchant Discount Fees and Interchange Fees paid by merchants accepting Visa or Mastercard.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion for certification for settlement purposes, approving the notice and notice plan.

The plaintiff, Keatley Surveying Ltd., brought a class action against Teranet Inc., alleging copyright infringement for scanning, copying, and making available online plans of survey registered in Ontario's electronic land registry system.

Both parties moved for summary judgment on common issues, primarily concerning whether copyright in the plans belonged to the Province of Ontario under s. 12 of the Copyright Act upon registration or deposit.

The court held that while copyright subsisted in the plans, it belonged to the Province of Ontario pursuant to s. 12 of the Copyright Act, as a result of their registration or deposit in the land registry office, which transferred ownership of the property, including copyright, to the Crown.

Consequently, Teranet, acting under license from the province, did not infringe copyright.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the class action was dismissed.

In a certified class action concerning a copyright dispute, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

The defendant filed its motion prior to certification, while the plaintiff filed its motion post-certification.

The court held that the plaintiff's post-certification motion should proceed first to ensure the common issues are decided as certified and bind the entire class.

The court also permitted the plaintiff to supplement its motion record with three additional affidavits.

In a proposed class proceeding, the plaintiffs alleged that Ticketmaster breached s. 2(a) of the Ticket Speculation Act by charging fees above the base price of tickets sold in the primary market, constituting unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The court held that although the statute could apply to certain primary-market transactions, the relevant prohibition concerns selling a ticket at a price higher than the price at which it was first issued.

Ticketmaster’s sales constituted the first issuance of the tickets at the full price charged, including service-related fees, and therefore did not contravene the Act.

The plaintiffs’ interpretation equating the “price first issued” with a base ticket price was found to be artificial and inconsistent with the statute’s purpose of targeting ticket scalping.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action regarding copyright in land surveyors' plans, the parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendant sought approximately $496,000, while the plaintiff argued for no costs or a maximum of $80,000, citing the novel point of law and public interest involved.

The court found that while the case raised a novel point of law, it did not involve a matter of public interest.

Applying the principles for fixing costs on a certification motion, the court awarded the defendant $200,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The plaintiff surveying firm sought certification of a proposed class action alleging that the operator of Ontario’s electronic land registry system infringed surveyors’ copyright in registered plans of survey by scanning, storing, and selling digital copies through online portals.

The motion was brought under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court held that although a cause of action for copyright infringement was adequately pleaded (with the exception of allegations based on “translation” into digital formats), the plaintiff failed to satisfy the remaining certification criteria.

The proposed class definition was merits‑based and there was no evidence that two or more persons wished to pursue the claim.

The court also found that the proposed common issues were largely individualized, particularly regarding ownership of copyright and consent, and that a class proceeding would not be the preferable procedure.

On a consent motion in a proposed class action concerning ticket resale practices, the court considered certification for settlement purposes and approval of a negotiated settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleged that the defendants’ primary and secondary market ticket sales violated the Ticket Speculation Act through resale pricing and related practices.

The court held that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) were satisfied, including the existence of an identifiable class and common issue relating to whether the defendants breached the statute.

The proposed settlement provided refunds of $36 per ticket to class members and required changes to the defendants’ ticket resale website practices.

The court concluded the settlement and the requested contingency fee arrangement were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

At the commencement of the hearing, the self-represented applicant requested an adjournment due to sudden illness and hospitalization for food poisoning.

Despite opposition from the respondents' counsel, the Tribunal granted a one-day adjournment.

On the second day, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the personal respondents and one corporate respondent.

With the consent of the participating respondents, the Tribunal granted the withdrawal, leaving only one corporate respondent in the proceeding.