Michael Allan Eizenga

The defendant in a proposed class action moved under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to dismiss the action for delay, on the basis that the plaintiff failed to file a final and complete certification motion record within one year of commencing the action.

The plaintiff filed a certification record three days after the one-year deadline and, in any event, the record was incomplete as it contained no litigation plan — an indispensable requirement under s. 5(1)(e)(ii) of the CPA.

The plaintiff also moved to amend the Statement of Claim and substitute two new representative plaintiffs, but both proposed plaintiffs demonstrated no meaningful understanding of or engagement with the litigation plan requirement, effectively leaving counsel to litigate on his own.

The Court of Appeal had definitively eliminated any judicial discretion to relieve parties of the strict requirements of s. 29.1.

The motion to dismiss was granted; the motion to amend and substitute was denied.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

This decision concerns Phase 4 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The original proposed class action, brought by former and current major junior hockey players alleging abuse, was not certified.

The Section 7 Plan aims to transition the proposed class action into up to 60 individual joinder actions.

The court approved Version 4 of the Draft Section 7 Plan, which outlines procedures for notice, opt-in, commencement of actions, case management, and discovery.

A key contentious issue resolved in this phase concerned the staying of third-party claims until the completion of the main actions.

This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.

Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.

The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.

This decision is Phase 3 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court is finalizing the Draft Section 7 Plan, which facilitates the transition of a proposed class action, previously denied certification, into up to 60 individual joinder actions against various hockey leagues and teams.

The plan addresses notice dissemination, the approval of contingency fee agreements, the management of third-party claims by staying them under Rule 29.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the potential for severance of actions.

The court also proposes a consensual settlement track for modest claims as an alternative to litigation.

This decision concerns a motion by the plaintiffs to discontinue a proposed class action in Ontario regarding optionally retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters manufactured by the defendants.

The discontinuance was sought to facilitate the settlement of 11 individual claims.

The court, pursuant to sections 19 and 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, approved the discontinuance and the proposed notice to putative class members.

The court found that the discontinuance would not prejudice non-settling class members, as similar class proceedings were ongoing in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and limitation periods remained suspended.

The motion was granted without costs.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

The applicants, JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other ongoing litigation.

JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. moved for orders to file Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) leave applications but suspend further proceedings.

Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited sought a blanket stay of all proceedings and limitation periods.

The Quebec class action plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought to partially lift the stay.

The court affirmed its broad jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 to stay all actions, including appellate proceedings and limitation periods.

The court dismissed the motion by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and granted Imperial Tobacco's motion, finding that a blanket stay best preserved the status quo and facilitated a global resolution for all stakeholders.

Appellants brought a proposed class action alleging that respondents conspired to divide the beer market contrary to section 45(1) of the Competition Act through a Framework Agreement signed in 2000, and that a surcharge levied by Brewers Retail on licensees violated the Liquor Control Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the regulated conduct defence was available to the respondents.

The Liquor Control Act authorized the impugned conduct.

The Ontario legislature subsequently enacted retroactive amendments in 2015 to remove any doubt that the conduct was authorized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the regulated conduct defence insulated the respondents from liability and that retroactive legislation could provide authorization for the defence.

The appellant, as representative plaintiff in a class action on behalf of approximately 4,500 former students of three provincial schools for the Deaf, appealed from a motion judge's order approving class counsel's legal fees subject to conditions.

The class action involved allegations of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and resulted in a $15 million settlement.

The motion judge approved fees of $3.75 million (25% of the settlement) but imposed conditions requiring class counsel to donate $1.5 million to a charity for the Deaf and made the remaining fees subject to proportionate reduction based on settlement fund reversion.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in unilaterally imposing the charitable donation condition without party consent, as this altered the negotiated settlement agreement.

The court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different judge.

The appellants, survivors and family members of victims of the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, brought a class action against Loblaws and Bureau Veritas seeking damages for negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that Bangladeshi law applied (not Ontario law), the claims were statute-barred under Bangladesh's one-year limitation period, and the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on all grounds.

The court also addressed a costs appeal, reducing the costs award by 30% to reflect the public interest component of the claims.

This addendum corrects an error in a previous costs decision (2018 ONSC 4862) regarding the amount of costs requested by Brewers Retail Inc. The original decision mistakenly stated Brewers Retail requested $600,000 on a partial indemnity basis, when the correct amount, based on an amended bill of costs, was $744,396.42, all inclusive, comprising fees, HST, and disbursements.

The court confirmed the costs award subject to this correction.

The court approved the $31.2 million in legal fees, disbursements, and taxes agreed upon by class counsel and the defendants (Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. et al.) following the $2.1 billion "dieselgate" class action settlement.

The fees were deemed reasonable and separate from the class members' recovery, ensuring the settlement remained generous and in the best interests of the class.

This class action involved two motions: approval of three settlements totaling $39.2 million in an FX market price-fixing conspiracy case, and approval of Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the stage of the proceedings.

However, the court partially denied Class Counsel's request for $9.8 million in fees, approving only an additional $2 million, citing that the achieved recovery (5 cents on the dollar against a potential $1 billion loss) was respectable but not "very good," and that the claimed litigation risks were somewhat exaggerated given prior regulatory findings and U.S. settlements.

The court emphasized the need for diligence in approving contingency fees in settlements to ensure they are provident for class members, not just counsel.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to approve the settlement and legal fees.

The class action, limited to specific pelvic mesh products (Avaulta, Align, Ajust), was certified for settlement.

The court approved the $2.475 million settlement after class counsel provided sufficient information demonstrating its reasonableness, addressing initial judicial concerns about the lack of detail.

Legal fees of $742,500 (30% contingency) plus disbursements and taxes were also approved, consistent with the court's principled approach to class counsel compensation.

The plaintiffs moved, on consent, for certification of a proposed medical device class action for settlement purposes, approval of a national settlement, and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action concerned allegations that surgical mesh hernia repair products were defectively designed and inadequately warned against, causing injuries due to device ring breakage or buckling.

The court found that the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Act were satisfied, noting an identifiable class and common issues regarding negligent design and failure to warn.

The court further held that the proposed $1.375 million settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given significant litigation risks and the small number of qualifying claimants.

A 30% contingency fee and disbursements were also approved as reasonable in light of the work performed and the risks undertaken by class counsel.

In a securities class action concerning alleged misrepresentations in the prospectus and offering materials for a company’s 2010 initial public offering, the representative plaintiff moved for court approval of a settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement provided for a global payment of USD $15,250,000 to resolve claims by Canadian and U.S. investors, with a coordinated cross‑border approval process and a shared claims administration.

The court applied the established criteria for approval of class action settlements, including the likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel’s recommendations, the reasonableness of the terms, and the absence of objections.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved both the settlement and the plan of allocation, as well as class counsel’s requested contingency fees and litigation expenses.

In a securities class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act, the plaintiffs sought certification for settlement purposes against certain underwriters, approval of three settlements totalling approximately $10.85 million, approval of counsel fees, and approval of a proposed plan of allocation.

The court held that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved them, along with counsel fees and the appointment of an administrator.

However, the court rejected the parties’ proposed distribution plan because it excluded class members who purchased shares on the day of the corrective disclosure from any compensation.

Exercising its authority to determine the plan of allocation, the court varied the distribution plan to include those purchasers and approved the modified plan as fair and reasonable.

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.