Randall Hofley

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class proceeding alleging that the defendants, major manufacturers of fragrance ingredients, engaged in an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy contrary to the Competition Act.

The proposed class included direct, indirect, and umbrella purchasers of fragrance ingredients and products.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the 'some basis in fact' test.

The evidence relied upon consisted merely of unsubstantiated suspicions and investigations by foreign regulators, without any direct or indirect evidence of a conspiracy or its impact in Canada.

Furthermore, the court found the proposed class definition unmanageable, as it would be nearly impossible for individuals to self-identify as class members.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash an appeal of a class certification order in a price-fixing conspiracy case involving packaged bread.

The plaintiffs (appellants) argued the certification order, which defined the class, effectively dismissed claims of excluded persons and was thus a final order appealable under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants (moving parties) contended it was a certification order governed by the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) and that, under the CPA's transitional provisions, the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court found the certification order was a procedural order, not a final one, as it did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Consequently, the appeal provisions of the CPA applied.

Furthermore, the court determined that the pre-2020 amendments to the CPA governed the appeal because the original proceeding was commenced before the amendments came into force.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was therefore quashed.

The court held a case conference to settle the terms of a certification order following a decision to certify a class action regarding alleged price-fixing of packaged bread.

The court reviewed competing draft orders and approved the producer defendants' draft with specific amendments, including adjustments to the definition of packaged bread, the class definition, and the retention of constructive trust as a common issue.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of three settlements in ongoing auto-parts price-fixing class actions.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of settlements with Hitachi (CDN$6,667,084), Autoliv (US$3.2 million), and Leoni (CDN$250,000), along with substantial cooperation from the defendants.

The court also considered certification for settlement purposes for the Occupant Safety Systems action against Autoliv and the Automotive Wire Harness Systems action against Leoni.

The court approved all settlements, finding them within a zone of reasonableness based on U.S. settlements, Canadian sales, and cooperation provided.

Additionally, class counsel's legal fees (25% of allocated settlement amounts) and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were approved, emphasizing the importance of robust contingency fee arrangements for access to justice.