Nicole Taylor

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 Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement concerning the defendant's practice of automatically renewing mortgages at increased interest rates.

The court found the $1.5 million settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the arm's length negotiation and lack of objections.

Class counsel fees of $450,000 plus HST and disbursements were approved, being less than their hourly rate calculation and reflecting the significant risk undertaken.

However, the requested $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff was denied, as the court determined her contributions, while appropriate, did not meet the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold required for such an award.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion to certify a class proceeding against Haventree Bank for settlement purposes.

The action alleged that the bank breached legislation and contract terms by automatically renewing mortgages at higher interest rates, leading to additional costs for class members.

The court granted the certification, finding that all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially in the context of a settlement.

The court also approved the notice plan and the appointment of a Claims Administrator.