Peter Griffin

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The representative plaintiff sought approval of a class action settlement regarding 'defeat devices' in Mercedes Benz BlueTEC diesel vehicles.

The settlement, valued at approximately $530 million, included no-charge emission modifications, extended warranties, and cash payments.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the risks of further litigation.

The court also approved $14 million in legal fees to be paid by the defendants and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The respondent, a UK-based company, brought a motion to stay the application against it for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, or to set aside service ex juris.

The applicant cross-moved to amend its Notice of Application to plead additional grounds for service outside Ontario and to add a claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

However, while the court found service ex juris was validly effected under the amended rules, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction simpliciter over the foreign respondent because none of the presumptive connecting factors from Van Breda were established.

The application against the foreign respondent was stayed.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of a $100 million settlement in a class action regarding hidden foreign exchange fees in registered accounts, along with approval of class counsel's legal fees and representative plaintiff honoraria.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable.

However, the court declined to approve the requested $25 million in legal fees based on a straight-line 25% contingency, finding that in a 'mega-fund' settlement, a multiplier and percentage cross-check must be used to avoid a windfall and maintain the integrity of the profession.

The court approved $20 million in legal fees, plus disbursements and taxes, and approved the requested honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions breached their trust and fiduciary duties by failing to disclose markup fees charged on foreign currency conversions in registered accounts.

The parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment on the common issues, and the defendants moved for decertification.

The court found that the defendants breached the trust agreements by failing to disclose the amount of the markup fees.

The court ordered an accounting of profits to be determined at a reference, emphasizing the need to deter fiduciary misconduct.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for an elevated interest rate and punitive damages, and dismissed the defendants' motion to decertify the class action.

Following the certification of a class action regarding emission levels in BlueTEC diesel vehicles, the plaintiff sought costs of $569,882 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found that while the plaintiff was largely successful, significant time was wasted on misguided aggregate damages submissions.

Applying the Grid rates and reducing the fees and disbursements to account for the unsuccessful arguments, the court fixed costs at $225,000 all-inclusive.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Purchasers of the Applicants' Securities moved for approval of a settlement agreement and plan of allocation in the context of CCAA proceedings involving Cash Store Financial Services and related entities.

The settlement provided for a payment of $13,779,167 by the defendants to resolve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding financial results.

The court approved the settlement and the associated third-party releases, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

The motion to approve the plan of allocation was adjourned on consent.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

Following Minutes of Settlement resolving estate litigation concerning farm property and estate assets, the parties disputed the interpretation of tax liability provisions in the settlement.

The responding party intended to pursue a tax strategy regarding estate filings and potential CRA assessments, while the moving party sought clarification and orders restricting what she characterized as a high-risk tax plan.

The court held that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a contract whose terms were clear and unambiguous when interpreted using standard contractual interpretation principles.

The agreement allocated full responsibility for tax restructuring, related transactions, and resulting liabilities to the responding party, including an obligation to indemnify the moving party and the estate trustee for any resulting liability.

The request for further clarification and restrictions was therefore dismissed.

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement following a mediation, which required the plaintiff to pay $1,325,000 to the defendant and for a farm property to be vested in the plaintiff.

A dispute arose regarding the tax consequences of the settlement.

Given the delay and the defendant's need for funds, the court issued an interim order implementing the non-controversial terms of the settlement, requiring the immediate payment of the funds into escrow and the registration of the vesting order and collateral mortgage, pending a final decision on the disputed issues.

The applicants sought costs following a motion for the production of documents.

Both parties claimed success on the motion.

The court found that the applicants were substantially more successful, as the respondent's principal position was that no disclosure should be ordered, forcing the applicants to bring the motion.

The court awarded the applicants costs fixed at $11,500 on an all-inclusive basis, reflecting a reduction for their lack of success on an alternative argument.

The tenants under two long-term ground leases appealed a majority arbitration award determining the fair market value of the lands for rent re-set purposes.

The court upheld the arbitrators' finding that the freehold interest, not the leasehold interest, was to be valued.

However, the court found the arbitrators erred in law by including the potential value of a freehold residential condominium project in the valuation, as a prior Divisional Court decision between the parties established that development potential unavailable to the tenants due to legal restrictions must be excluded.

Finding that issue estoppel applied to this prior determination, the court set aside the arbitration award and ordered a new hearing.

In a class proceeding involving claims by automobile dealers, the plaintiff moved to add punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages as an additional common issue against a defendant law firm.

Although the proposed question concerning entitlement to punitive damages had some commonality, the court held that punitive damages could not be appropriately determined at the common issues stage because causation and compensatory damages had not been certified and would require individualized assessments.

The court emphasized the doctrinal link between compensatory damages and punitive damages and concluded that the degree of misconduct could not be meaningfully assessed until the defendant's liability and related third-party claims were resolved.

As a result, the proposed question was not a preferable procedure under s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Action Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion was dismissed, though the court noted that punitive damages could still be addressed later in the proceedings under the court’s broad management powers.

Following certification of a class proceeding alleging unpaid overtime by investment advisors, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought $575,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendant argued the award should not exceed $315,000.

The court outlined a structured methodology for certification-motion costs awards emphasizing transparency, historical averages, proportionality, and the Rule 57.01(1) factors.

After reducing the claim for excess fees and disbursements and considering historical cost award data and comparable cases, the court fixed costs at $290,000 all-inclusive payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

In CCAA proceedings involving the Nortel group, the joint administrators of certain European, Middle Eastern, and African debtor entities brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents from a non‑party accounting firm relating to transfer pricing arrangements and intellectual property development.

The court reviewed the governing principles for non‑party production, including the requirement that such orders be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without the documents.

The court found that many of the requested documents had already been communicated to the client and were likely produced through existing discovery processes.

For documents not communicated to the client, the moving party failed to demonstrate their importance or any evidentiary gap justifying exceptional production.

The court concluded that proceeding to trial without the requested materials would not be unfair and dismissed the motion with costs.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against his former employer for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued that investment advisors fall within the managerial or greater benefit exemptions.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against the defendant for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendant argued that investment advisors were exempt from overtime provisions due to their managerial character or because their compensation provided a greater benefit.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

In a national class action by terminated GM dealers against GMCL and their counsel, Cassels Brock & Blackwell (CBB), CBB brought third party claims against out-of-province local lawyers who provided independent legal advice to the dealers.

The out-of-province third parties brought motions to stay or dismiss the claims for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction under the fourth Van Breda presumptive connecting factor because the Wind-Down Agreements, which required the independent legal advice, were made in Ontario and were sufficiently connected to the dispute.

The court also found Ontario to be the most appropriate forum.