Paul M. Perell

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to compel the class action administrator (Epiq) to disclose contact information of "Unlawfully at Large" (UAL) claimants to law enforcement.

The class members, through their counsel, opposed this, arguing it was an improper use of class action administration powers and a violation of Charter rights, suggesting that the Criminal Code's production order process was the appropriate mechanism.

The court, in a joint decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec, denied the Attorney General's broad request.

Instead, it granted a modified order, allowing disclosure only if the Attorney General first obtains a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, thereby upholding the proper legal process for obtaining such information while acknowledging the Attorney General's good faith in bringing the motion.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which pleaded thirteen causes of action arising from an internet contract for bitcoin investment.

The court found the Statement of Claim to be based on fictionalized facts from the plaintiff's memory rather than the actual contract.

The court struck the Statement of Claim with leave to amend, but specifically struck claims against individual directors, conversion, breach of the Competition Act, and intentional infliction of mental distress without leave to amend.

The claim for breach of Colombian law was struck with leave to amend to properly plead foreign law.

The plaintiff, Adrian Wasylyk, brought a motion for court approval of a Litigation Funding Agreement with Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Canada Investments Ltd. for a proposed class action against Lyft, Inc. and Lyft Canada Inc., alleging misclassification of ride-share drivers as independent contractors.

The court reviewed the agreement against the requirements of s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and common law principles for third-party funding.

The defendants took no position.

The court found the agreement fair, reasonable, and compliant with all statutory and jurisprudential requirements, granting the motion.

The plaintiff, Bluemoon Capital Ltd., sought court approval under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to discontinue a proposed class action against the defendants on a with-prejudice and without-costs basis.

The action, alleging secondary and primary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act, was commenced to preserve claims while a Norwich application was pending.

Following the denial of the Norwich application by Justice Pattillo and its confirmation on appeal, the plaintiff determined the action was no longer viable.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding it was for a proper purpose and would not prejudice putative class members who were unaware of the action.

The plaintiff's request to suspend the discontinuance for 60 days to allow for potential class member action was denied, as no purpose would be served by giving notice or suspending the discontinuance.

This class action is in the settlement administration phase.

Class Counsel sought an order appointing Doug Mitchell as a bilingual arbitrator to assess appeals filed by class members regarding claims administrator decisions, as contemplated by the court-approved Administration Protocol.

The court granted the motion, finding Mr. Mitchell qualified and his appointment consistent with the fair and expeditious determination of class member appeals under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard unopposed applications by the Joint Committee in the national Hepatitis C class actions (Parsons and Kreppner) to allocate approximately $160 million in "Excess Capital" from the settlement fund.

The Joint Committee proposed four recommendations to increase various benefits for approved class members and family members, including lump sum payments, loss of guidance/care/companionship awards, lost pension benefits, and loss of services rates.

The court granted the application, finding the proposed allocations reasonable, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the settlement agreement's purpose of bridging compensatory gaps.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought court approval to discontinue the action without costs and without prejudice to putative class members, except for the named plaintiffs.

The action concerned alleged negligent design of a transmission shift cable in certain vehicles.

The motion for discontinuance was brought due to recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence limiting recovery for pure economic losses in product liability cases, which significantly curtailed the prospect of a substantial award for the putative class.

The defendants consented to the discontinuance.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the putative class members were not prejudiced, and the proposed notice of discontinuance was adequate.

The representative plaintiffs, I.P. and M.P., brought a motion for court approval to discontinue a proposed class action against the Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada and other related entities, without costs and without notice to putative class members.

The proposed class action, initiated in 2015, alleged sexual abuse of children at the Holy Cross Mission.

The plaintiffs and 27 other putative class members had individually settled their claims outside of the class proceeding framework.

The court granted leave to discontinue the action but required the Merchant Law Group, as putative class counsel, to provide notice of the discontinuance to all putative class members, including those who had settled, through website posting, newspaper publication, and direct delivery of the reasons for decision.

The court emphasized the need for transparency and protection of vulnerable class members, noting that the individual settlements and counsel fees were not disclosed for court approval.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought court approval to discontinue the action without costs and without prejudice to putative class members, except for the named plaintiffs.

The action concerned alleged negligent design of a 'Body Control Module' in certain vehicles.

The discontinuance was sought due to recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence limiting recovery for pure economic losses in product liability cases, which significantly curtailed the prospect of a substantial award for the class.

The defendants consented to the discontinuance.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, and the discontinuance would not prejudice putative class members, as limitation periods remained suspended until discontinuance.

The Landlord, Daniels CCW Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Tenant, Larisa Shevchuk, and the Indemnifier, Emmanuel Paul, in a commercial lease dispute.

The Landlord sought damages for lost rents and pre-judgment interest after the Tenant defaulted on rent payments and the lease was terminated.

The Defendants admitted liability for arrears but disputed the claim for lost future rent, arguing failure to mitigate and improper damage calculation.

The court found the evidentiary record sufficient for summary judgment, rejecting the Defendants' arguments regarding mitigation and damage calculation, particularly given the re-letting of the premises.

The Landlord was granted judgment for $184,359.62.

This is Part 7 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning multi-jurisdictional class actions (Brazeau, Reddock, Gallone).

The decision addresses a consensual motion by the parties to streamline the payment process for "Track 2, Box 1 only Claims" under the previously approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The courts approved an order confirming that payments to class members, class counsel, and the Class Proceedings Fund will be made periodically (every 75 days after a cut-off date) without requiring further motions for confirmation, thereby enhancing judicial economy and access to justice.

This is Part 6 of a joint decision concerning the ongoing administration of multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec) against the Attorney General of Canada regarding administrative segregation.

The parties brought a joint, consensual motion to amend sections 10.1 and 11.2 of the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aim to resolve issues arising from "BRG Crossover" claimants (those with placements in both Ontario and Quebec) and misallocated claimants, by allowing claimants to elect the court (Ontario or Quebec) that will review their claims, provided there is a connection to that jurisdiction.

The court approved the amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of class members and conducive to cost-effective and expeditious claim determination.

This decision concerns the costs arising from an application where the applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement, which proceeded as a motion and cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court previously found the settlement agreement unenforceable due to misrepresentation, unconscionability, and/or undue influence, awarding the funds in court to the respondent.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court awarded the respondent $28,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the applicant's initial action reasonable and noting the respondent's abandoned jurisdictional challenge.

The plaintiff, Tegan Adams, brought a motion for partial summary judgment against Ruth Chun and Chun Law Professional Corporation, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and professional negligence.

The motion specifically sought a finding of breach of fiduciary duty or, in the alternative, the existence of a fiduciary relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record incomplete and inadequate for summary judgment, particularly due to a lack of documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, and necessary witness testimony, as well as significant credibility issues.

The court emphasized that the existence of a fiduciary duty could not be bifurcated from the broader issues of the case.

The applicants initiated a proceeding by application seeking declarations and substantial damages related to an anaerobic digester, and subsequently moved to add a party and for injunctive relief to prevent the digester's reactivation.

The court found the application procedurally inappropriate and outside its jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly due to the presence of material facts in dispute and the complex nature of the claims (nuisance and negligence).

Consequently, the court converted the application into an action, directing the applicants to file a Statement of Claim, and denied the immediate injunctive relief on the basis that it was not available in an improperly commenced application.

The applicants sought to enforce letters rogatory issued by a Michigan court in a civil criminal-enterprise proceeding.

The application, initially against seven non-parties, was bifurcated to focus on two respondents, Rouzbeh Behrouz and Majestic Food Services, Inc., who later became parties to the Michigan action and opposed the letters rogatory.

The court addressed significant evidentiary challenges, particularly regarding hearsay, clarifying that the Ontario court's role is not to determine the truth of allegations but whether the evidence sought is relevant and necessary for the foreign court.

The court found that the applicants satisfied the prerequisites and criteria for enforcing letters rogatory, including relevance, necessity, and unobtainability of evidence, and that granting the order was not contrary to public policy.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement regarding a condominium unit against the deceased's estate and trustee.

The respondent, the deceased's widow and estate trustee, sought to set aside the agreement.

The court treated the application as a motion for summary judgment and found the settlement agreement unenforceable due to misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence, awarding the disputed funds to the respondent.

This decision addresses a costs motion following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $300,000 USD (converted to $406,960 CAD) against one defendant for a loan repayment, while the action against the co-defendant (guarantor) was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs on a mixed partial and substantial indemnity basis, totaling $151,623.41, arguing that a Rule 49 settlement offer was served and the defendant's resistance was "tough." The court reviewed the unopposed costs submissions and detailed Bill of Costs, finding the claimed costs reasonable and necessarily expended, particularly given the self-represented defendant's sophisticated and challenging conduct.

The court granted the costs as requested.

The plaintiffs in three proposed class actions sought orders to note three corporate defendants (the "Fortress Defendants") in default of defence.

The motions were dismissed.

The court found that despite multiple attempts, the plaintiffs' Class Counsel failed to properly serve the amended originating process on the Fortress Defendants in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically rules 16.02(1)(c) and 26.04(3).

The court upheld the registrar's rejections, emphasizing the strict adherence required for service rules, especially given the significant financial implications of a default judgment.

The applicant, Universal Engineered Restoration, brought an application under Rule 14 for the distribution of $305,987.52 held in the trust account of the respondent lawyer, Harpreet Khukh, due to competing claims from other respondents, Ayman Mohammed Alkhatib and 8995079 Canada Inc. Mr. Khukh had paid the funds into court.

On consent of the parties, the application was converted into an action, with Universal to deliver a Statement of Claim and the other respondents to deliver a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The application was dismissed without costs against Mr. Khukh, and costs of the proceeding to date were ordered to be in the cause of the converted action.