L. Visser

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of cathode ray tubes (CDTs) and colour picture tubes (CPTs).

The plaintiff asserted causes of action under the Competition Act and for common law unlawful means conspiracy, including claims on behalf of umbrella purchasers.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes and to approve a settlement agreement with certain defendants alleged to have participated in a conspiracy to fix prices in the cathode ray tube (CRT) industry.

The settlement provided for a payment of $4.15 million and additional non‑monetary cooperation.

The court held that the action met the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for settlement purposes and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiff also sought approval of contingency fees, disbursements, and taxes pursuant to the retainer agreement.

The court found the requested fees and disbursements reasonable given the complexity and risks of the litigation.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding liquid crystal display (LCD) panels.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Competition Act, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims (discoverability).

The court also held that the discoverability principle applies to the limitation period in s. 36(4) of the Competition Act.

In a proposed class action alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the optical disc drive (ODD) market contrary to common law and s. 45 of the Competition Act, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the claim to add eighteen additional corporate defendants.

The defendants opposed the amendment on the basis that limitation periods under the Limitations Act and s. 36(4) of the Competition Act had expired.

The court held that at the pleadings amendment stage it was inappropriate to make definitive findings on discoverability or the expiry of limitation periods where the evidentiary record was incomplete.

Although the plaintiff’s evidence regarding due diligence was thin, the court concluded it would be unfair to refuse the amendment solely on the deficient record.

The motion was adjourned to permit the plaintiff to file additional evidence addressing discoverability and diligence.