Matthew Douglas Baer

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Rady J dated October 1, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of independent distributors who contracted with the defendants to deliver fresh bread products.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached their contracts and the Arthur Wishart Act by participating in and concealing an illegal price-fixing conspiracy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common issues, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.

This decision addresses two motions: the plaintiff's motion for a stay of a proposed class action against Apple Canada Inc. pending an appeal in an unrelated case (Lewis v. Uber Canada Inc. et al.), and Apple's scheduling motion for summary judgment to be heard before certification.

The plaintiff's class action alleges Apple overcharged consumers on sales tax in its trade-in program, contrary to the Excise Tax Act and other statutes.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's stay motion, finding no certainty the Lewis appeal would resolve the jurisdictional issue, and that a stay is inappropriate merely because a similar legal issue is being decided in an unrelated case.

The court granted Apple's scheduling motion, affirming the strong presumption under s. 4.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, that merits-based motions should be heard before certification, especially when they could dispose of the entire case.

Costs were awarded to Apple.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of a retainer agreement and an order for the defendants to pay Class Counsel's legal fees and disbursements.

This motion was brought after the plaintiff withdrew a certification motion in a class action alleging an electrical defect in Class Vehicles.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants' subsequent voluntary offer of an enhanced warranty to Canadian customers, mirroring a U.S. settlement, constituted "success" attributable to the litigation, thereby entitling Class Counsel to fees.

The defendants contended that the Canadian warranty enhancement was independent of the Canadian litigation, consistent with their corporate practice of coordinating benefits with U.S. settlements regardless of parallel Canadian actions.

The court found no evidence that the benefits stemmed from the Canadian action and concluded that the class proceeding had not been "successful" as defined by the Class Proceedings Act, which primarily links success to judgments or settlements.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for fees and disbursements.

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.

This certified class action concerned allegations of misleading advertising by Ford regarding fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels for 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles, claiming breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection statutes.

Both parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no contravention of the Competition Act due to Ford's compliance with federal guidelines and a lack of evidentiary support for a misleading general impression.

While provincial consumer protection laws allow for non-disclosure claims, the court found no legal obligation for Ford to provide additional disclosures (a "Second Label") beyond the EnerGuide Label and the referenced Fuel Consumption Guide, as there was no evidence that car buyers were deceived.

The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the class action, was granted.

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 defendant in a certified class action moved for partial summary judgment and sought leave under Rule 39.02 to admit an expert psychiatric report obtained after the representative plaintiff was cross-examined on her affidavits.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the defendant split its case and failed to comply with the court-ordered timetable.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the defendant provided no adequate explanation for failing to obtain the evidence earlier and that admitting the late report would cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff given the agreed-upon timetable.

The plaintiff sought certification of a national class proceeding on behalf of Canadian corn growers alleging negligent premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed containing the MIR-162 trait before Chinese import approval was obtained.

The court held that the action satisfied the cause of action, common issues, preferability, and representative plaintiff requirements, and that there was some basis in fact for loss, causation, and a proposed aggregate damages methodology despite competing expert evidence.

The court rejected arguments that the class was unsupported for lack of proof of loss, that limitations issues defeated certification, and that individualized damages questions barred certification.

Certification was granted, subject to refinement of the class definition and amendment of one proposed common issue.

The plaintiff brought an omnibus motion to implement a Court of Appeal judgment in favour of a class of over 35,000 retirees regarding pension indexation.

The court approved the implementation methodology, which provides an estimated $103 million present value recovery to the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $10 million, a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, and the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

Finally, relying on section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court eliminated the right of class members to opt out, finding that the declaratory nature of the judgment and the 100% recovery made an opt-out right unnecessary and potentially unjust.

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 for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Belobaba dated October 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties, the plaintiffs, fixed in the amount of $35,000.

The plaintiffs in two class actions against Hyundai and Kia sought court approval for a proposed settlement agreement concerning allegedly defective Theta II 2.0-litre and 2.4-litre gasoline direct injection engines in certain vehicles.

The settlement provides for an extended lifetime powertrain warranty, reimbursement for past qualifying repairs and related expenses, compensation for vehicles sold at a loss or lost to engine fire, and a trade-in rebate program.

The court reviewed the settlement against the principles for class action settlement approval, including arm's-length bargaining, the amount of investigation, the zone of reasonableness, and the recommendations of counsel and representative plaintiffs.

Despite objections from a small percentage of class members, the court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, approving it as it falls within the zone of reasonable outcomes given the litigation risks and benefits.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding involving product liability claims against the manufacturers of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for defective design because they did not identify a specific alternative design.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that regulatory advisories provided 'some basis in fact' to certify the common issue of whether the defendants breached their duty to warn learned intermediaries of the risks associated with the filters.

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.

Following a partially successful certification motion in a privacy breach class action, the plaintiffs sought costs of $532,162.17.

The court found the requested amount excessive and unreasonable due to over-litigating, over-staffing, and over-docketing.

Noting the plaintiffs' mixed success and last-minute changes to their case that prejudiced the defendants, the court reduced a reasonable starting point of $160,000 by half, awarding the plaintiffs $80,000 all-inclusive.

A case conference was held in a class action proceeding to address procedural matters.

The court approved the agreed-upon Notice Plan for the Notice of Certification.

Additionally, the court set a timetable for the plaintiff's upcoming summary judgment motion, granting the defendants until June 15, 2020, to serve their responding materials due to the complexity of the damages calculation and multijurisdictional analysis required.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class action against a smartphone manufacturer regarding a product recall.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the pleadings failed to disclose a viable cause of action due to lack of particulars and lack of contractual privity.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to establish common issues, as the expert evidence on damages was not grounded in the facts of the case and individual trials would be necessary to determine harm.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's class action on summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the Class Proceedings Fund argued for a 30% reduction on the basis that the litigation was brought in the public interest.

The court rejected both arguments, finding that the defendants' discounted fee arrangement and the breach of trust pleading did not justify an elevated costs scale, and that the pension calculation dispute was a private financial matter rather than public interest litigation.

The court exercised its discretion to award the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $200,000 for fees plus disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Nissan following a data breach where an unknown employee accessed and stole the personal information of thousands of customers, demanding a ransom.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court certified common issues relating to vicarious liability for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, aggregate damages, and punitive damages, while narrowing the proposed class definition.