Paul J. Martin

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The defendants, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, sought to schedule a motion to stay an individual action and remove plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, prior to the certification motion for a proposed class action.

The plaintiff, Kabir Singh, opposed this scheduling, arguing these issues should be determined at the certification hearing.

The court, applying section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that hearing the conflict and stay issues before certification would ensure a fair and expeditious determination, preventing potential delays and issues with adequacy of representation if a conflict were found later.

The court ordered the defendants' motion to be heard before the certification motion.

The defendants, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, brought a motion to strike various paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, alleging no reasonable cause of action or insufficient particulars.

The plaintiff claimed constructive dismissal, misrepresentation, Human Rights Code violations, and malicious investigation.

The court struck paragraphs related to malicious investigation, misrepresentation, Human Rights Code violations, and negligent infliction of mental suffering, but granted leave to amend for all.

Allegations of common employer and certain paragraphs pleading evidence were allowed to remain.

The court emphasized that pleadings define the scope of discovery and that leave to amend should generally be granted at this stage.

The defendants, Aviva General Insurance Company and RBC Insurance Agency Ltd., sought directions to schedule Aviva General's proposed summary judgment motion before the certification hearing in a class action.

The plaintiff, Kabir Singh, opposed this sequencing request.

The court dismissed the defendants' request, finding that the summary judgment motion would not dispose of the entire proceeding, would require a full evidentiary record, and would likely lead to delays, increased costs, and potential interlocutory appeals, thus not promoting judicial efficiency or settlement.

The plaintiff, Haidar Omarali, brought a motion for summary judgment on 13 certified common issues in a class action against Just Energy Group Inc., Just Energy Corp., and Just Energy Ontario LP.

The core issues concerned whether the defendants' 8000 sales agents were employees or independent contractors under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and if employees, whether they were exempt as outside salespersons or fell within the "route salesperson" exception.

The court found diametrically conflicting evidence regarding the level of control exercised by the defendants over the sales agents, raising serious credibility issues and requiring substantial clarification.

Due to these evidentiary conflicts, the insufficiency of evidence to make class-wide determinations, and the preclusion of a "mini-trial" approaching the dimensions of a full trial by s. 34(3) of the Class Proceedings Act, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

All 13 common issues were directed to proceed to a focused trial.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the manufacturers of Cook IVC filters, alleging negligent design and failure to warn of risks associated with the medical devices.

The court dismissed the certification motion.

While the plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class and representative plaintiff criteria, and pleaded a valid cause of action for failure to warn, they failed to plead a valid cause of action for design negligence.

Crucially, the court found no 'some basis in fact' for the existence of any common issues regarding either design defect or duty to warn, as the evidence did not identify a specific design defect or inadequacy in the warnings provided to physicians.

Consequently, the preferable procedure criterion was also not met.

This costs endorsement followed a discharge motion for an interim receiver.

The Interim Receiver and Fasken, Martineau DuMoulin LLP sought substantial indemnity costs against Nyaz Jethwani, who had opposed the discharge and fee approvals.

The court found Jethwani was not a public interest litigant and was responsible for costs incurred due to his opposition.

However, the offers to settle did not meet Rule 49 requirements, and Jethwani's conduct, while causing unnecessary costs, was not reprehensible enough for substantial indemnity.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Interim Receiver ($75,000) and Faskens ($54,000), plus $2,500 each for the costs motion itself.

The Interim Receiver requested a case conference to clarify the scope of cross-examinations on its fee affidavits and those of its counsel, and sought to limit the production of invoices.

The Plaintiff, representing investors, challenged the Interim Receiver's fees and alleged negligence by its counsel, seeking broad cross-examination and full disclosure.

The court reiterated that when an Officer of the Court seeks fee approval, they become a litigant with an economic interest and are subject to cross-examination like any other party.

The court declined to provide further directions to limit the scope of cross-examination and ordered the production of all relevant invoices, emphasizing transparency.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve class action settlements with the Sumitomo and GS Electech defendants regarding alleged price-fixing of automotive wire harness systems, electronic control units, and heating control panels.

The court found the settlements, totaling $11 million for Sumitomo and $120,000 for GS Electech, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness compared to U.S. settlements and potential damages.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements.

This decision approves two class action settlements against Furukawa and Fujikura defendants for price-fixing in the automotive wire harness systems (AWHS) industry.

The court certified the class actions for settlement purposes, finding that the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The settlements, for $2.3 million (Furukawa) and $1,083,280 (Fujikura), were deemed fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class, based on detailed affidavit evidence from class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, calculated as a 25% contingency plus disbursements and taxes, consistent with retainer agreements and prior jurisprudence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action on behalf of approximately 7,000 door-to-door sales agents who were hired by the defendants as independent contractors.

The plaintiff alleged that the sales agents were misclassified and were actually employees entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, noting sufficient evidence of systemic commonality regarding the defendants' control over the sales agents.

The motion for certification was granted.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed national class action alleged that multiple manufacturers conspired to fix prices of polyurethane foam and carpet underlay products.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of several negotiated settlement agreements with numerous defendants totaling approximately $29.28 million for the benefit of the class, along with cooperation provisions to assist claims against remaining defendants.

An objector argued that the settlements should not be approved until a distribution protocol and damages analysis were finalized.

The court held that settlement approval can properly occur before approval of a distribution protocol and that the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the complexity, litigation risk, and absence of meaningful objections.

The settlements were therefore approved.

Following a prior decision approving class counsel fees in a class proceeding settlement, class counsel sought clarification regarding the calculation of the fee award, treatment of consulting law firm fees, application of taxes, and comments regarding disclosure of a fee sharing agreement.

The court acknowledged that an arithmetic error had occurred in the original calculation and corrected the award by applying a 10% reduction to the claimed counsel fee before adding disbursements.

The court clarified that consulting law firms were to be paid from the approved counsel fee rather than treated as additional disbursements and confirmed that applicable taxes were payable in addition to the approved amount.

The court also addressed concerns about disclosure of the fee sharing agreement, reiterating that failure to fully disclose the agreement’s substance was a mistake despite counsel’s intentions.

Representative plaintiffs in a proposed national competition law class action sought court approval of partial settlement agreements with three defendants, approval of contingency fee agreements with class counsel, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court approved settlements totaling $13.63 million with Bank of America, Capital One, and Citigroup and found the agreements fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court also approved the contingency fee agreements but scrutinized a separate fee‑sharing agreement between class counsel and a rival law firm that had commenced competing class actions.

The judge held that the fee‑sharing agreement required court approval, was not fair or reasonable to class members, and may constitute champerty or maintenance.

Class counsel’s requested fee was reduced by 10%, and the court ordered that no payment be made to the rival firm under the unauthorized agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging a global price-fixing conspiracy by the defendants regarding airfreight shipping services.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action as it related to absent foreign claimants, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court granted the motion, finding that the real and substantial connection test should not be applied to establish jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants, as an Ontario judgment would not be recognized abroad, offending principles of order, fairness, and comity.

Alternatively, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, it would decline it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes against a credit card network defendant in a competition law action alleging conspiracy to fix merchant discount and interchange fees for Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions.

The claims included alleged breaches of the Competition Act, tortious conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and unjust enrichment.

The court considered the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, an identifiable class was established, common issues existed, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

The court noted that certification for settlement purposes still requires satisfaction of the statutory criteria, though the analysis may be less strict given the settlement context.

Certification was granted as against the settling defendant and the proposed notice and notice plan were approved.

The court issued an endorsement to settle the terms of a certification order in a securities class action, following the certification of conspiracy claims.

The defendants sought to exclude 'early sellers' from the class definition and challenged the class period dates.

The court declined to exclude early sellers, finding it premature as the scope of those entitled to relief for conspiracy was uncertain.

The court also approved the class period dates as they aligned with the plaintiff's theory of the case.

Finally, the court approved the plaintiff as a suitable representative for both primary and secondary market purchasers regarding the conspiracy claim.