3 total
Court allocates excess capital from Hepatitis C class action settlement trust to benefit Class Members.
The Attorney General of Canada and the Joint Committee representing Class Members brought competing applications regarding the allocation of approximately $236 million in excess capital held in the trust fund established by the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement.
Canada argued the excess capital should be returned to it, while the Joint Committee sought to allocate the funds to increase benefits for Class Members.
The court dismissed Canada's application, finding that the excess capital allocation provision was intended to provide an opportunity to bridge compensatory gaps for Class Members.
The court approved seven of the Joint Committee's nine recommendations for allocating the funds, including increases to fixed payments and loss of services compensation, to be implemented by way of special distribution.
An Ontario Superior Court judge has inherent jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside the province.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine whether a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could sit outside Ontario to hear a motion concerning a pan-Canadian class action settlement.
The Attorney General of Ontario objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside its territorial boundaries.
The court held that where it has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it possesses the inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, which includes the discretion to sit outside the province.
The court found that holding a joint hearing with supervisory judges from British Columbia and Quebec in Alberta was in the interests of justice to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent orders.
Appeal allowed in part; survivors' estates have no Charter s. 15(1) rights regarding CPP pensions.
The Attorney General of Canada appealed a trial judgment regarding survivor's pensions under the Canada Pension Plan.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, settling the formal order to reflect that survivors' estates have no rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter and are not exempt from s. 60(2) of the CPP.
The court also held that s. 72(1) of the CPP does not infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents.