Raphael Tony Eghan

This class action, initiated in 2017 following a 2015 train derailment, faced a motion by Canadian National Railway Company (CN) for dismissal due to delay under section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceeding Act, 1992.

CN argued that no certification motion was pending, nor was there a court-ordered timetable for advancement by the October 1, 2021, deadline.

The plaintiffs contended that the court had established a timetable through prior case management conference endorsements, which included steps like environmental assessments and subsequent case management conferences.

The court found that the ordered environmental assessment and subsequent case management conferences constituted "steps required to advance the proceeding" and thus a valid timetable under the Act.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss for delay was refused.

In a competition class proceeding alleging price‑fixing in the static random access memory (SRAM) industry, the plaintiff sought court approval of a national settlement reached with certain defendants and approval of interim class counsel fees.

The settlement required the settling defendants to pay $1.5 million for the benefit of settlement class members across Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec, and to provide cooperation in the ongoing litigation against remaining defendants.

The court applied established class action settlement approval principles, assessing fairness, reasonableness, and the best interests of the class.

Finding the settlement well‑investigated, negotiated at arm’s length, and beneficial to class members given the risks of continued litigation, the court approved the settlement and the requested class counsel fees.

In a proposed class action alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the optical disc drive (ODD) market contrary to common law and s. 45 of the Competition Act, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the claim to add eighteen additional corporate defendants.

The defendants opposed the amendment on the basis that limitation periods under the Limitations Act and s. 36(4) of the Competition Act had expired.

The court held that at the pleadings amendment stage it was inappropriate to make definitive findings on discoverability or the expiry of limitation periods where the evidentiary record was incomplete.

Although the plaintiff’s evidence regarding due diligence was thin, the court concluded it would be unfair to refuse the amendment solely on the deficient record.

The motion was adjourned to permit the plaintiff to file additional evidence addressing discoverability and diligence.

Application for a final order approving a corporate plan of arrangement under s. 182 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The proposed transaction involved the acquisition and division of assets of the corporation among related entities, with shareholders receiving a combination of cash and shares.

The court reviewed the governing framework established in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, requiring that the transaction constitute an arrangement, comply with statutory and court-ordered procedures, be proposed in good faith, and be fair and reasonable.

Evidence showed overwhelming shareholder approval, provision of dissent rights, and oversight by an independent special committee with fairness advice.

The court concluded the arrangement had a valid business purpose and fairly balanced the interests of affected stakeholders.