Paul M. Perell

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought two motions: one seeking leave to file third and fourth supplementary affidavits from an expert, Dr. Jooyoung Lee, and another compelling the defendant, Smith & Wesson Corp., to provide answers and documents from a cross-examination.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the supplementary affidavits were not relevant to the certification criteria and that the requested discovery questions were primarily merits inquiries or fishing expeditions, disproportionate to the needs of the certification motion.

Dr. Valery Fabrikant, a self-represented class member, brought a second application seeking orders related to the post-judgment distribution scheme and individual issues protocol in a class action concerning administrative segregation.

The court dismissed the application, reiterating its previous finding that as a class member who did not opt out, Fabrikant lacked standing to unilaterally seek amendments or challenge the court-approved protocol, having lost litigation autonomy.

The court emphasized that class members are bound by the class action's outcome and are represented by the representative plaintiffs and class counsel.

In a proposed employment law class action, Amazon successfully resisted certification and obtained a stay for certain claims.

Amazon sought approximately $2.0 million in costs, while the plaintiff, Denver Davis, argued for an award of around $400,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and access to justice in class proceedings, awarded Amazon costs on a partial indemnity basis of $750,000, finding both parties' requested amounts to be unreasonable.

The decision emphasized that costs should reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, not necessarily the successful party's actual costs, and acknowledged the public interest element in the plaintiff's claim.

This decision concerns Phase 4 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The original proposed class action, brought by former and current major junior hockey players alleging abuse, was not certified.

The Section 7 Plan aims to transition the proposed class action into up to 60 individual joinder actions.

The court approved Version 4 of the Draft Section 7 Plan, which outlines procedures for notice, opt-in, commencement of actions, case management, and discovery.

A key contentious issue resolved in this phase concerned the staying of third-party claims until the completion of the main actions.

The applicant, a real estate developer, appealed a Building Code Act Order to Comply issued by the City of Toronto, which mandated reverting his five-unit residential multiplex to a three-unit dwelling.

The property, originally a single-family home, was converted to multiple units before the applicant's purchase in 2011, and was zoned for single-family use in 1963.

The City initiated prosecution for non-compliance.

The court found the City's Order, issued under s. 10(1) of the Building Code Act, was based on an error of law, as that section applies to a change in use by the current owner, not a pre-existing condition.

Despite the appeal being out of time, an extension was granted.

The appeal was allowed on terms that the property must be used for only three dwelling units, aligning with the Act's public welfare objectives.

This decision is Phase 3 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court is finalizing the Draft Section 7 Plan, which facilitates the transition of a proposed class action, previously denied certification, into up to 60 individual joinder actions against various hockey leagues and teams.

The plan addresses notice dissemination, the approval of contingency fee agreements, the management of third-party claims by staying them under Rule 29.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the potential for severance of actions.

The court also proposes a consensual settlement track for modest claims as an alternative to litigation.

This decision addresses two class actions, Francis v. Ontario and Chandra v. Ontario, concerning administrative segregation of inmates in Ontario correctional facilities.

The court heard motions for approval of a settlement in Chandra and a comprehensive claims protocol (Francis/Chandra Protocol) for both actions.

The Protocol establishes a three-track claims program for distributing aggregate damages and assessing individual claims.

The court granted both motions, finding the settlement and protocol fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, commending counsel for their diligent and exemplary work in pursuing access to justice.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the defendants to strike, stay, or dismiss a tort action, which was dismissed by the court.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants requested partial indemnity or no costs, arguing for divided success.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $36,665.22, all-inclusive, finding no divided success and deeming the plaintiff's costs reasonable.

In a class action seeking certification against the Crown and two psychiatrists (Defendant Doctors) regarding treatment in a psychiatric hospital program, the plaintiffs moved for a partial discontinuance of the action against the Defendant Doctors.

The court granted the discontinuance, finding it to be in the best interests of the putative Class Members.

The decision was based on the lack of additional recovery from the doctors, the streamlining of the claim, the doctors' later involvement in the program, and their agreement to provide de bene esse examinations to preserve evidence.

The court confirmed that the discontinuance was not for an improper purpose and did not prejudice the class members or the co-defendant Crown, as the doctors' evidence remained available.

This endorsement concerns the approval of an amended distribution protocol for a certified and settled class action against Robert Bosch GmbH.

Due to a larger-than-anticipated residue in the settlement fund, the Representative Plaintiffs requested a revised protocol to distribute the remaining funds pro-rata among direct benefit claimants who had cashed their cheques.

The court approved the proposed distribution, including a final distribution of any remaining residue to the Law Foundation of Ontario’s Access to Justice Fund.

In a certified and settled class action, the Representative Plaintiff brought a consent motion to amend the Distribution Protocol, seeking an additional $90,000 for administrative expenses to complete a Second Distribution of settlement funds.

The initial settlement of $22,250,000 included $780,000 for administration.

Due to uncashed cheques and ongoing administrative efforts, the settlement administrator and financial expert required more funds.

The court found the request for additional administrative expenses fair and reasonable given the settlement value, number of class members, and complexity of the distribution, and granted the motion.

The plaintiff, Dr. Darryl Gebien, sought court approval for a Third-Party Funding Agreement with Omni Bridgeway Ltd. for a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical companies regarding the opioid crisis.

Several defendants objected to specific provisions of the agreement, including those related to amendments, assignments, attornment, costs enforcement, termination procedures, accrued costs, and confidentiality.

The court found that while the agreement generally met the requirements for approval, several of the defendants' objections, particularly concerning comprehensive attornment by Omni Bridgeway Ltd. and the broad confidentiality provisions, were "genuinely meaningful" and required resolution.

The motion for approval was adjourned to allow the parties to address these issues, with the court emphasizing that it is not its role to draft the agreement.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action brought a motion seeking an order to provide official notice to class members regarding the outcome of common issues summary judgment motions, despite pending appeals and cross-appeals.

The defendants objected, arguing that such notice would confuse class members and disputed the sharing of information and costs.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that providing notice was necessary to protect the interests of the class members and that the defendants' concerns about confusion were unfounded.

The court emphasized the fiduciary responsibility of class counsel to report to class members throughout the litigation.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2581 applied for various orders against a unit owner, Giovanni Paterno, due to his disruptive, aggressive, and non-compliant behaviour, including breaches of the Condominium Act, the condominium's declaration and rules, and workplace violence policies.

The Corporation sought declarations of breach, an order to vacate, and a forced sale of his unit, along with damages and costs.

The court found Paterno in breach of the Act and condominium rules due to his substance abuse-related misconduct, property damage, and harassment of staff and residents.

While acknowledging his remorse and efforts, the court deemed an immediate eviction too harsh.

Instead, it issued a conditional order: declarations of breach, orders for compliance, payment for damages and costs, and a conditional eviction/sale order to be triggered upon any future breach of the court's order.

This is a motion for certification for settlement purposes in a proposed privacy law class action concerning a data breach affecting 8.6 million customers of LifeLabs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs sought court approval for certifying the action for settlement, approving the settlement notices (Short and Long Form), and a plan for their dissemination.

The court granted the motion, finding that all criteria for certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in the settlement context.

The settlement involves a guaranteed fund of $4.9 million and a contingent fund of $4.9 million, with claimants receiving a minimum of $50.

In this class action, the plaintiffs brought a motion, with the defendants' consent, seeking court approval for the notice of a settlement approval hearing, the notice distribution plan, the procedure for class member objections, and the appointment of a notice administrator.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed notice and distribution plan complied with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and were consistent with practices in similar class action settlements, ensuring class members would be adequately informed of the proposed settlement and objection process.

The plaintiff, Yan Qing (Eva) Chen, brought an unopposed motion for default judgment against the defendants, Ji Cai Sun and Tai Ji International Auctions Corp., seeking damages for trespass, conversion, and fraud related to the theft of antiques.

The plaintiff also sought an order to correct a misnomer in the style of cause, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and a finding that the debt was a result of fraud under section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court granted the plaintiff's requests, finding the defendants liable based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence, and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

This decision addresses the costs of a class action certification motion.

The plaintiff initially sought certification for a broad class action, which was adjourned due to being "uncertifiable." The plaintiff then reformulated and narrowed the claim, leading to partial certification.

The plaintiff sought substantial costs, while the defendant sought offsetting costs for wasted efforts.

The court, exercising its discretion, ordered no costs, finding the plaintiff's claim excessive and acknowledging the defendant's significant success in narrowing the class and issues.

The court emphasized reasonableness and divided success in class action costs.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, brought a consent motion to dismiss third-party proceedings against ADI Developments (Link) Inc., ADI Development Group Inc., and Tariq Adi.

The motion was brought after the plaintiff's main action against Olympia Trust was dismissed and a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving claims against the ADI Defendants was approved.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the third-party proceedings with prejudice and without costs, as the basis for the third-party claim was obviated and the dismissal was on consent.

This decision concerns an oppression remedy application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Following a prior ruling that declared oppressive conduct and ordered the winding up of Buhbli Organics Inc., the court addresses the appointment of a liquidator.

The respondents opposed the appointment and sought a stay pending appeal, arguing the hearing should be deferred.

The court dismissed the respondents' arguments, finding the liquidator's appointment integral to the previous order, and proceeded to appoint MNP Ltd. as liquidator, rejecting the respondents' cost concerns as the rates were market-based.

The court also issued an order with specific powers for the liquidator, clarifying its role and limitations, and ordered a judgment for $170,000 against the respondents for non-compliance with a previous order.