Megan B. McPhee

The plaintiffs brought a motion to settle the Notices of Certification and the Litigation Plan in a class action concerning universal life insurance policies.

The court excluded certain sentences from the Notices of Certification, finding them unnecessary and potentially confusing for class members deciding whether to opt out.

The court also heavily edited the plaintiffs' proposed Litigation Plan, removing extraneous, premature, and confrontational information, noting that a post-certification litigation plan should focus on implementation rather than litigation strategy.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $20,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a class action settlement agreement concerning allegedly defective Medtronic defibrillators, approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, and honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement and class counsel fees, finding the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and lack of reported injuries.

However, the request for honoraria for representative plaintiffs was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of exceptional contributions beyond typical representative plaintiff duties.

This class action concerned defective Medtronic Sprint Fidelis leads for implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of a $26 million settlement, class counsel fees, and honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting arm's-length bargaining and comprehensive investigation.

Class counsel's request for 30% contingency fees and disbursements was approved, upholding the strong presumption of validity for such agreements given the litigation's complexity and risks.

However, the request for honoraria for the representative plaintiffs was dismissed, as no exceptional circumstances or contributions beyond expected involvement were demonstrated.

Following a five-week trial where the plaintiffs succeeded in claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $6.2 million on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' litigation conduct did not warrant such a sanction and the pre-litigation conduct was already addressed through punitive damages and disgorgement.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,200,000 for the action and $20,000 for the counterclaim, apportioning liability among the defendants based on the claims.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the RCMP for systemic negligence regarding bullying, intimidation, and harassment.

The Crown argued the court should decline jurisdiction due to available internal and legislative remedies.

The court found those alternatives inadequate given the systemic nature of the claims.

Concluding that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, common issues predominated, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiffs were appropriate, the court granted the certification motion.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on the applicable exchange rate and prejudgment interest following a judgment where defendants were found to have breached fiduciary duties and conspired to conceal assets.

The court applied the default exchange rate under s. 121(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which mandates conversion at the date of payment, rejecting the defendants' argument for an earlier transaction date.

The court found that a change in exchange rate alone does not constitute inequity to depart from the default rule.

Prejudgment interest was awarded on the damages and disgorgement amounts from the date the cause of action arose (August 15, 2012), at a rate of 1.3%, in accordance with s. 128(1) of the CJA, excluding punitive damages.

The plaintiffs, founders of a venture capital fund, brought an action against their co-founders and a third-party purchaser for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conspiracy.

The court found that the co-founders secretly established a competing fund and conspired with the purchaser to acquire a portfolio company at a discounted price while concealing a valuable asset (the Tinder app).

The court awarded compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages against the defendants.

This is a costs endorsement addressing the allocation of costs for certification and summary judgment motions in the Superior Court and the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The plaintiffs appealed from orders of Justice Paul M. Perell denying certification and granting summary judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiffs achieved partial success: they obtained certification on some common issues but not on their negligent misrepresentation claim, and they reversed summary judgment on some claims while others remained time-barred.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the plaintiffs reflecting their overall success.

The plaintiffs moved to enforce an alleged settlement agreement with the defendant Seven Hills Group LLC, while Seven Hills brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the negligence claim against it.

The court found no binding settlement agreement existed, as the parties had not agreed on essential terms regarding the scope and indemnity provisions of the release.

The court granted Seven Hills' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Seven Hills owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, as its engagement letter with Xtreme Labs expressly limited its duties and prohibited reliance by third parties like the plaintiffs for the purpose of a management buyout.

The action against Seven Hills was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Seven Hills.

This appeal concerns a proposed $2.5 billion class action involving more than 230,000 universal life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company between 1985 and 1998.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation in the sale of policies and breach of contractual duties relating to premiums and fees.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion for misrepresentation claims and initially declined to certify breach of contract claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, certifying the breach of contract common issues and allowing the plaintiffs to pursue individual misrepresentation claims.

The court found the motions judge erred in principle by failing to conduct individualized and contextual analyses of the limitation period defences and by improperly deciding the merits of the breach of contract claims at the certification stage.

The defendants Chamath Palihapitiya and El Investco 1 Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked evidence for their claims, particularly conspiracy.

The plaintiffs opposed, asserting that the conspiracy claims against the moving parties could not be severed from claims against other defendants not party to the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that granting summary judgment for a subset of defendants risked inefficiencies, conflicting findings, and multiple appeals, especially given the proximity of the trial and the intertwined factual matrix.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the defendant's mixed success on a summary judgment motion, the defendant sought costs of $3.6 million on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the award should not exceed $775,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs in pleading misrepresentation.

Considering the defendant's technical loss on the summary judgment motion, which nonetheless provided a strategic victory in defeating certification, the court fixed costs at $1.0 million on a partial indemnity basis as a fair and reasonable amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a life insurance company, alleging breach of contract regarding increases to the cost of insurance and administrative fees for universal life insurance policies.

The court had previously adjourned the motion to allow for further evidence on how the fees were calculated.

After reviewing actuarial evidence, the court found that the insurer had set and adjusted the fees in accordance with the policy terms and industry practice.

Concluding there was no basis in fact for the breach of contract claims, the court dismissed the certification motion in its entirety.

The plaintiffs, Wendell and Linda Allen, brought a motion for court approval of a settlement in a certified class action against The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company ("Manulife").

The class action alleged Manulife failed to provide proper adjustment notices for TermPlus life insurance policies, leading to insufficient premiums and negative accumulation amounts for policyholders.

Manulife investigated, acknowledged errors, and sought to resolve the issue.

The proposed settlement, valued between $1.59 million and $2.03 million, aimed to restore approximately 170 class members to the position they would have been in had proper notices been received, often providing 100% recovery without deductions for fees.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, granting the motion for approval.

The plaintiffs, who had opted out of a rival Alberta class action to pursue an Ontario action, brought a motion to restrain the Merchant Law Group from contacting them.

A junior associate at the Merchant Law Group had sent a letter to one of the plaintiffs, who was already represented by Kim Orr Barristers.

The court found the communication inappropriate and a breach of duties owed to the court.

Although the court declined to issue a formal injunction because no actual harm occurred, it issued a declaration and awarded $15,000 in costs against the Merchant Law Group.

The plaintiff brought a certification motion for a class action regarding systemic negligence.

During the hearing, the judge noted a statement in the plaintiff's factum suggesting the judge had previously stated the case was ideally suited for a class action.

Concerned about a reasonable apprehension of bias, the judge inquired about the comment.

After clarification that the comment was misreported and actually related to US class action regimes, the judge adjourned the first day to allow parties to consider a recusal motion.

Neither party wished to bring a recusal motion.

The plaintiff requested an adjournment due to lost hearing time, which the Crown did not oppose.

The hearing was adjourned.

The moving party defendant sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to serve a Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim against foreign defendants in a proposed class proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the motions judge was in the best position to interpret his own prior order regarding amendments for the purpose of certification.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance warranting appellate consideration.

In a proposed class action brought by a former RCMP officer alleging systemic sexual harassment and discrimination against female RCMP members, the defendant Crown moved under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Crown argued that systemic negligence claims against the RCMP amounted to impermissible direct liability contrary to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, that no contractual employment relationship existed, and that the claim was statute‑barred.

The court held that the breach of contract claim was untenable because the employment relationship of RCMP members is statutory rather than contractual and struck that portion of the claim.

However, the court found it was not plain and obvious that the systemic negligence claim failed, holding that the pleadings could support vicarious liability of the Crown for collective misconduct of Crown servants.

The limitation issue could not be resolved on a pleadings motion.

The plaintiffs in a proposed Ontario class action brought a motion seeking mandatory and restrictive injunctions against a class action administrator, class counsel in a certified Alberta class proceeding, and a defendant manufacturer.

The motion arose after an Alberta class action concerning allegedly defective oral contraceptives proceeded to certification and settlement discussions, while the Ontario action had been discontinued as a class proceeding and converted into a joinder action for claimants opting out of the Alberta case.

The plaintiffs objected to a letter sent by the Alberta action administrator suggesting that opt-out forms might have been submitted without the recipients’ knowledge.

The court criticized the language of the letter and the involvement of opposing counsel in its drafting but held that no actual harm had occurred and that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over several of the actors.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed.