Mahmud Jamal

In a proposed class action, the defendants (Watchtower-Pennsylvania and Watchtower-New York, Inc.) successfully brought a preliminary motion to strike three affidavits filed by the plaintiff's counsel.

Following this, the defendants sought costs of $15,252.12.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive, citing the involvement of senior counsel and the defendants' refusal to engage in settlement discussions.

The court found the requested costs to be reasonable and awarded the full amount to the defendants, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

In a proposed class action regarding institutional sexual abuse, the foreign defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike three affidavits sworn by a partner of the plaintiff's law firm.

The affidavits were filed in support of a joinder motion and in opposition to a jurisdiction motion.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the affidavits improperly contained legal argument and personal opinions, violating the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Furthermore, the court held that the manner in which the evidence was presented created a disqualifying conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct, as the lawyer arguing the motion was the source of the contentious information in the affidavits.

The affidavits were struck with leave to deliver an unadorned Affidavit of Documents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes against a credit card network defendant in a competition law action alleging conspiracy to fix merchant discount and interchange fees for Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions.

The claims included alleged breaches of the Competition Act, tortious conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and unjust enrichment.

The court considered the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, an identifiable class was established, common issues existed, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

The court noted that certification for settlement purposes still requires satisfaction of the statutory criteria, though the analysis may be less strict given the settlement context.

Certification was granted as against the settling defendant and the proposed notice and notice plan were approved.

In a copyright appeal, the Court considered whether pre-existing sound recordings embedded in film and television soundtracks remain subject to equitable remuneration under s. 19 of the Copyright Act when the soundtrack accompanies a cinematographic work.

Applying modern statutory interpretation, the Court held that the soundtrack exclusion in the definition of sound recording captures pre-existing recordings in that context.

The Court found this reading consistent with the legislative scheme, parliamentary intent, and international obligations under the Rome Convention.

As a result, the proposed tariffs could not be certified for performances or communications of recordings when accompanying cinematographic works.