Perell

The plaintiffs brought a closure motion in a national class action regarding price-fixing of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM).

The court approved a cy-près distribution of $922,974 in surplus settlement funds to organizations that refurbish computer equipment for educational needs.

The court also discharged the claims administrator and confirmed the payment of final disbursements to class counsel.

The applicants, owners of a servient tenement, brought an application to discharge two right-of-way easements encumbering their property and benefiting the respondents' neighbouring property.

The applicants also sought $500,000 in damages for trespass.

The court found that the respondents had intentionally abandoned the easements decades prior by ceasing to use them for vehicular access and building a parking pad on their own property.

The court ordered the easements discharged under section 61 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

The trespass claim was dismissed because the applicants did not have possession of the property at the time of the alleged trespass.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor following a default on a $5.5 million loan.

The defendant failed to comply with the timetable, serve materials, or file a fresh statement of defence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted judgment for the principal, interest, and fees totaling over $6 million, along with a writ of possession and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs in a competition law class action regarding price-fixing of lithium ion batteries brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes and approval of a notice plan regarding a settlement with the Panasonic defendants.

The settlement provided for payment of approximately $8.2 million CAD.

The court found that the criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met in the settlement context and granted the motion, approving the certification and the plan for disseminating the notices of hearing.

Two Requests for Directions were brought under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The claimant, M-23620, sought directions to have her Actual Income Loss (AIL) claim determined by the court after an IAP Adjudicator issued an interim decision awarding compensation for other harms but leaving the AIL claim undecided.

Canada sought a review of the Adjudicator's interim decision and opposed the bifurcated procedure.

The court held that the bifurcated procedure established in the Kelly line of cases applies, allowing the AIL claim to proceed as a regular action in the Superior Court.

The court also held that Canada is entitled to pursue a review of the Adjudicator's decision concurrently with the court action.

The representative plaintiffs in three related class actions concerning the employment status of major junior hockey players sought approval of a $30 million settlement.

The court declined to approve the settlement because of an eleventh-hour objection raising concerns that the standard form release in the settlement agreement might bar class members from pursuing other existing class actions against the defendants for concussions, sexual abuse, and anti-competitive behaviour.

The court found that the release needed to be renegotiated to ensure it did not prejudice class members' rights in those other actions.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $17 million settlement, a distribution protocol, and class counsel fees in a certified class action regarding prepaid payment cards.

The action alleged the defendants breached gift card regulations under the Consumer Protection Act by seizing expired balances and charging unauthorized fees.

After a summary judgment was granted in part and appealed by both parties, a settlement was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the distribution protocol and class counsel's fee request of 30% of the settlement amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff, an 85-year-old widow, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a vesting order for a condominium unit jointly owned with her adult child, the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed the property was transferred into joint tenancy for estate planning purposes without any intention of a gift, creating a resulting trust.

The defendant refused to reconvey the property and counterclaimed for human rights violations and 'derogatory behaviour' related to his gender transition.

The court found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust, as no gift was intended.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a vesting order and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding no legal or factual basis for the human rights allegations.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement agreement and the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff argued the defendants' costs claims were excessive.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $45,000 to Leggett and $3,500 to Garlock.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' proposed class action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $68,369.13 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs or a reduced amount, citing the novelty of the issue and the defendant's reliance on an exculpatory clause.

The court rejected the 'no costs' argument but reduced the award to $52,500, noting the novelty of the issues and the defendant's opposition to a pleadings amendment.

Class counsel moved for approval of an interim fee award and disbursements following a $250,000 settlement with the Bank of Montreal defendants in a class action.

The court reviewed the requested fees of $62,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $119,800.83, plus taxes.

Applying the factors for assessing the reasonableness of class counsel fees, the court found the request fair and reasonable and approved the fee award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a settlement with the Bank of Montreal (BMO) defendants in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement amount was $250,000.

The court found that the case against BMO was significantly weaker than against other defendants, as BMO's trading operations accounted for less than 1% of the market and no regulatory findings had been made against it.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved the settlement agreement.

In a certified class action by franchisees against Shoppers Drug Mart regarding the retention of professional allowances, the plaintiffs brought a discovery motion seeking to compel answers to refused questions, to examine three non-party former employees, and to obtain documentary production from two non-party generic drug manufacturers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had already provided sufficient information to allow the plaintiffs to argue their case, and that further discovery would be irrelevant and disproportionate.

The court ordered a limited search for documents related to 'over and above' amounts but otherwise denied the relief sought.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to revise a conditional Certification Order, approve the Notice of Certification, and determine costs.

The court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to revise the Certification Order, as it was properly taken out and there was no mistake.

The court approved a modified Notice of Certification and directed the parties to make written submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $21.5 million settlement agreement in a class action regarding transvaginal mesh medical devices manufactured by the defendants.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was the product of arm's length negotiations and offered good monetary compensation.

The court also approved the distribution plan, class counsel's fee request of $5.375 million plus disbursements, and honoraria of $10,000 for each representative plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against a group of defendant banks in a proceeding alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settling defendants agreed to pay $250,000.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and approved the settlement agreement, the notices, and the plan of dissemination.

The plaintiff, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, was disqualified by the Dispute Resolution Appeals Committee (DRAC) following a complaint about his campaign materials.

He brought a summary judgment motion seeking to restore his candidacy, arguing breach of contract, procedural unfairness, and bad faith.

The court found that while the process was fair and there was no bad faith, the DRAC lacked the authority under the party's rules to disqualify a candidate.

The court set aside the disqualification and restored the Chief Returning Officer's original ruling, which imposed a penalty but not disqualification, without prejudice to the Leadership Election Organizing Committee's right to consider the matter.

The defendants in a settled class action brought a motion for orders authorizing provincial and territorial authorities to disclose vehicle owner information.

This information was required to implement the court-approved notice plan.

The provinces and territories consented to or did not oppose the relief sought.

The court granted the requested orders, noting that in the circumstances of the Covid-19 emergency, the reasons for decision would be deemed an operative order.

Two rival consortia of law firms brought a carriage motion to determine who would prosecute a class action against Capital One, Amazon, and GitHub regarding a massive data breach affecting 6 million Canadians.

The court evaluated the competing case theories, noting that while both actions were viable, the Del Giudice Action's strategy of including Amazon and GitHub as defendants, despite adding complexity and litigation risk, was preferable for advancing the interests of the class and the goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

Carriage was granted to the Del Giudice Action.