Matthew D. Baer

The plaintiff brought a consent motion to discontinue a proposed class action regarding a data breach involving Capital One.

The action had previously been stayed following a carriage motion where another action was granted carriage, but the stay was lifted after the other action was denied certification.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the test for discontinuance was met and ordering notice to be posted on class counsel's websites.

The plaintiffs in two related class actions sought approval of their retainer agreements and Class Counsel's legal fees following a settlement.

The court found the retainer agreements complied with the Class Proceedings Act and were understood by the representative plaintiffs.

The court also approved the negotiated collective fee of $1,989,507.91 for Class Counsel across Canada, finding the 1.1 multiplier reasonable given the results achieved, the risks involved, and the extensive work performed.

The defendants in two related class actions brought a motion seeking production of Class Counsel's detailed time and fee records (Fee Details) in advance of a scheduled fee approval motion.

Class Counsel sought a multiplier of approximately three on its docketed time, totaling nearly $5 million in fees.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Fee Details were necessary for the defendants and the court to assess whether the requested fees were fair and reasonable, particularly given Class Counsel's assertions that there was no duplication of work among the national consortium of law firms.

The defendants brought a motion to amend the class definition in a certified data breach class action.

They sought to narrow the class to persons who had active leases or loans with Nissan during a specific period, based on evidence that the stolen data sample only contained information from that timeframe.

They also sought to exclude corporate customers.

The court granted the motion to amend the timeframe, finding it supported by the evidence, but declined to exclude corporate customers at this stage, holding that the issue of whether corporations can claim intrusion upon seclusion should be determined as a separate question of law.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the manufacturers of Cook IVC filters, alleging negligent design and failure to warn of risks associated with the medical devices.

The court dismissed the certification motion.

While the plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class and representative plaintiff criteria, and pleaded a valid cause of action for failure to warn, they failed to plead a valid cause of action for design negligence.

Crucially, the court found no 'some basis in fact' for the existence of any common issues regarding either design defect or duty to warn, as the evidence did not identify a specific design defect or inadequacy in the warnings provided to physicians.

Consequently, the preferable procedure criterion was also not met.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a products liability class action against the defendants regarding pelvic mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while the plaintiffs satisfied the cause of action, identifiable class, and representative plaintiff criteria, they failed to establish some-basis-in-fact for the commonality and preferable procedure criteria due to the multifarious nature of the 19 different products involved.

The dismissal was made subject to an 'Alternatives Motion' to allow the plaintiffs to propose continuing the proceeding in an altered form.