Paul J. Martin

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

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 appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding involving product liability claims against the manufacturers of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for defective design because they did not identify a specific alternative design.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that regulatory advisories provided 'some basis in fact' to certify the common issue of whether the defendants breached their duty to warn learned intermediaries of the risks associated with the filters.

The plaintiff, an 18-year-old soccer player, suffered an electric shock from stray voltage leaking from a light pole at a municipally-owned sports field.

The shock was caused by internal damage to the pole's wiring resulting from a recent lightning strike.

The plaintiff sued the municipality under the Occupiers' Liability Act, claiming physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the specific nature of the electrical failure was highly unusual and not reasonably foreseeable.

The court concluded that the municipality had met its standard of care by adhering to regular inspection and maintenance protocols, and was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

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 plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the panel accepted the member’s guilty plea and agreed statement of facts regarding cosmetic dental treatment in which crowns and a bridge were provided after discussions and documentation referring to veneers.

The panel found professional misconduct for over-preparing teeth, failing to obtain informed consent, charging excessive fees above recommended rates without explanation or consent, and providing inaccurate information to the regulator during the investigation.

The panel held that the patient had not consented to the actual treatment provided and that the member’s conduct caused significant clinical harm and raised serious integrity concerns.

A joint submission on penalty was accepted, resulting in an 18-month suspension, extensive remedial and practice restriction terms, and costs.

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.