Odette Soriano

The applicant sought to certify a class proceeding against her former lawyers, alleging they breached the Solicitors Act by improperly including recovered costs in their contingency fees without court approval.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and an identifiable class could be defined, the claims lacked commonality.

The court held that determining whether the contingency fee agreements were fair and reasonable required highly individualized assessments of each solicitor-client relationship, making a class proceeding unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.

In a proposed class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the moving party brought an omnibus motion seeking multiple procedural and evidentiary orders affecting the record for a certification motion.

Most of the relief sought was either abandoned or dismissed, with only minor unopposed amendments granted.

The court held that the respondents were entitled to costs because the moving party was largely unsuccessful.

Although the respondents sought over $30,000 including substantial indemnity costs for abandoned claims, the court rejected punitive costs and applied the partial indemnity scale.

A proportionate costs award of $20,000 all-inclusive was ordered.

Following the abandonment of a motion seeking court approval of a third‑party litigation funding agreement in a proposed class proceeding, the respondents sought costs under Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant argued that the costs decision should be deferred to the certification motion, that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty of the issues, or alternatively that a reduced amount should be ordered.

The court held that the normal rule applies that a responding party is entitled to costs when a motion is abandoned.

While costs were warranted, the amount claimed on a partial indemnity basis was excessive.

The court reduced the award and ordered costs payable to the respondents in the amount of $7,000, all inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class action alleged negligent design and manufacture of elevator “sheave jammer” braking devices and breach of maintenance contracts following a regulatory order requiring their replacement.

The parties reached a mediated settlement establishing a $12 million settlement fund for class members who incurred costs replacing the devices.

The court held the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness given litigation risks, including uncertainty in proving defectiveness and potential reduction of damages through betterment arguments.

The court approved the settlement, class counsel fees, and a $15,000 honorarium for one representative plaintiff, but declined compensation for the second representative plaintiff.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action and permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include negligent design.

The class action concerned allegedly defective elevator sheave jammers that the defendants installed and later required replacement.

The defendants argued the motions judge misapplied the 'some basis in fact' test for certification by not weighing their evidence against the plaintiffs' evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting jurisprudence on the certification test and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on either the certification or the pleading amendment.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in their entirety and refusing leave to amend.

The pleadings alleged assault, breach of contract, malicious prosecution, unreasonable refusal of club membership, and defamation.

The Court of Appeal found that the new allegations were not raised before the motion judge and were inadequately pleaded, the membership refusal did not give rise to a cause of action, and the defamation claim lacked the required specificity.

The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse leave to amend due to the passage of time and failure to provide proposed amended pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant's pleading wholly failed to plead any particulars of the claims alleged.

Costs of $6,250 were awarded to each of the respondents.

The defendants, eight major financial institutions, successfully defended an appeal of a decision denying certification of a class action regarding mortgage contracts.

The defendants sought their costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded, asserting the proceeding was a test case and involved a matter of public interest under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding the case was not a test case, did not raise a novel point of law, and was not a matter of public interest, but rather involved individual commercial mortgage contracts.

The court awarded the defendants modified partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 per defendant.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions to certify eight separate class proceedings against various financial institutions.

The claims alleged that the respondents incorrectly interpreted mortgage provisions regarding partial prepayment rights and early discharge penalties.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action as they relied on implied terms not supported by the express language of the mortgages.

The court also agreed that the proposed classes were overly broad, individual issues overwhelmed any common issues, and a class proceeding would be unmanageable and not the preferable procedure.