Paul V. McCallen

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.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that found no arguable issue for trial regarding its claims for equitable and legal set off.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the equitable set off claims lacked the requisite close connection, and the legal set off claims were either for unliquidated damages or factually complex amounts not readily ascertainable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding an acknowledged debt.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $7,500.

Following the release of the court's reasons, counsel for the appellants requested a reconsideration of the costs of the applications, noting that the appellants were not separately represented as stated in the reasons.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum acknowledging the error but declined to reconsider the costs disposition, finding it remained appropriate because separate applications had been brought.

The appellants, former officers of a local union, were disciplined by an independent hearing officer pursuant to the union's constitution.

The union sought to enforce the hearing officer's decisions as arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application judge granted the enforcement, finding that the union constitution constituted an arbitration agreement.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the internal disciplinary proceedings were not arbitrations and the union constitution was not an arbitration agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement applications were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision upholding his termination for cause.

The appellant had been absent from work for three months, failed to provide satisfactory medical documentation, and ignored the employer's direction to file a claim for short-term disability benefits.

Although the trial judge failed to provide reasons for concluding that this misconduct justified termination without notice, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Court found that the trial judge's findings of fact, including the appellant's failure to communicate with the employer and his engagement in part-time work elsewhere while medically fit to return, supported the conclusion that the employment relationship had broken down.

The appellants appealed an order setting aside their third party claims against the plaintiff's employer and disability insurer.

The appellants argued that the third parties should be bound by the determination of issues in the main action to prevent inconsistent findings under Rule 29.01(c).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had no cause of action against the employer and that the possibility of inconsistent findings in subsequent litigation against the insurer was too speculative and contingent.