2 total
The court clarified evidentiary requirements for class action settlement claims and mandated fact-specific rejection notices.
This motion for directions addresses appeals of rejected claims in a class action settlement concerning cathode ray tubes (CRT) products.
The Claims Administrator had rejected claims, often using generic reasons, for insufficient proof of purchase.
The court clarified the interpretation of the Distribution Protocol, emphasizing that while declarations alone are insufficient"comparable verification" should be accepted.
The court also ruled that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel do not have the authority to unilaterally amend the appeal process, which is under court control.
The appeals for certain class members were allowed and remitted for reconsideration, with directions for the Claims Administrator to provide fact-specific and instructive grounds for future decisions.
Appeal dismissed; landowner not an 'owner' under Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment claim barred by juristic reason.
The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its construction lien and quantum meruit claims against the respondent landowner.
The trial judge found the respondent was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because it did not request the work, which was performed under a separate contract with a third-party purchaser.
The Divisional Court upheld this finding, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error.
The Court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that while the trial judge erred in requiring the respondent to have caused the deprivation, the claim still failed because the appellant's contract with the third party constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.
