Robert Carson

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.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totaling $1,391,715.45 following a successful, but partially limited, certification motion in a class action against several financial institutions.

The Defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing their substantial success in narrowing the class definition and potential double recovery from prior settlements.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in legal fees and HST, payable forthwith, and ordered disbursements of $468,705.06 payable in the cause.

The reduction in fees reflected the Defendants' success in streamlining the class action and reducing their potential liability, which the court deemed important for the integrity of the class actions regime and to discourage overambitious claims, without constituting a distributive costs award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

The appellant corporation appealed a judgment fixing the fair value of its shares at 30.4 cents per share under s. 185 of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by valuing the corporation on a going concern basis rather than a liquidation basis, by adjusting the cash flow forecast based on a three-month delay for alternative refinancing, and by failing to account for dilution from convertible debt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge's valuation involved fact-specific judgment calls that were entitled to deference and revealed no errors of law.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) regarding allegations of supervisory inadequacies in RBC's foreign exchange (FX) trading business from 2011 to 2013.

Staff alleged that RBC failed to promote a culture of compliance, allowing FX traders to inappropriately share confidential customer information with competitors in electronic chat rooms.

RBC acknowledged the conduct was contrary to the public interest, engaged in significant remediation efforts, and agreed to make a voluntary payment of $13,552,000 and pay $800,000 in costs.

The Commission found the settlement to be in the public interest.

The defendants sought costs of $35,000 all-inclusive after successfully bringing a motion to stay the action.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing it was excessive.

The court found the defendants were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and previous costs awards in similar litigation involving the plaintiff, the court awarded the defendants costs in the amount of $17,500 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order approving a settlement reached with the defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Canada Limited in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement requires the settling defendants to pay USD$2.3 million and provide cooperation in the ongoing prosecution against the remaining defendants.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was in line with previously approved settlements in the proceeding.

The settlement and the previously approved distribution protocol were approved.

The applicant, an automotive components manufacturer, sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act due to severe financial difficulties.

After extensive negotiations with secured lenders and key customers, the applicant proposed a strategic sale process with a stalking horse bidder, supported by a DIP facility.

The court granted the Initial Order, finding the applicant insolvent and the proposed stay of proceedings, DIP facility, and bidding procedures to be reasonable and necessary to preserve the business and employment.

The court addressed costs and interest following a prior judgment on share valuation.

Due to mixed results and the inherent unpredictability of share valuation, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs, including expert fees.

On the issue of interest, the court determined that the discretion to award interest to dissenting shareholders under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) was not curtailed by the corporation's ability to pay.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the prescribed rate of 0.8% from the date of the statutory offer (May 11, 2017) to the date of the judgment, with postjudgment interest thereafter, on the determined share values for the dissenting shareholders.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion for certification of a class proceeding against the respondents for alleged systemic negligence in connection with overcharging for electricity supply caused by a new billing system.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no common harm to the class, as the alleged systemic negligence produced a multiplicity of errors that were harmful, neutral, or beneficial to different class members.

The court concluded that the proposed common issues were not substantial ingredients of each class member's claim and that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant company sought to fix the fair market value of common shares held by dissenting shareholders who opposed amendments to create convertible preferred shares.

The court rejected the applicant's liquidation approach to valuation, instead valuing the company as an ongoing concern using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method.

The court determined that a three-month time delay in the commencement of projected cash flows was appropriate, balancing the company's straightened financial circumstances with its ongoing viability.

The "en bloc" fair market value was fixed at $12,300,000, resulting in a per share value of $0.304.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Deciem Beauty Group Inc., brought an urgent oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act seeking various interim orders against Deciem, Integridad Inc., Pasquale Cusano, and Brandon Truaxe.

The motion sought to remove Mr. Truaxe from Deciem's board, officer, and employee roles, appoint an interim CEO, define the board composition, prohibit Truaxe's interference with business operations and electronic systems, amend the unanimous shareholders agreement, and appoint PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP to investigate allegations of criminal activity and Deciem's financial condition.

The court found a triable issue of oppression, irreparable harm to Deciem, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, given Truaxe's erratic and destructive behavior that brought the company to the brink of disaster.

The appellants, plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1782 against a non-party, Bloomberg.

The respondents successfully moved before the case management judge for an order requiring the appellants to obtain authorization under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure before taking any steps to enforce the subpoena.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly held that the appellants could not use the U.S. process to circumvent Ontario's strict rules on pre-certification discovery of non-parties, and that the appellants had failed to make full and fair disclosure to the U.S. court.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Hydro One Networks on behalf of customers who were allegedly overcharged due to a malfunctioning customer information system (CIS) implemented in 2013.

The plaintiff advanced claims for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment, seeking $100 million in aggregate damages.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues lacked commonality because the alleged systemic negligence produced a multiplicity of errors requiring individual inquiries.

The court also found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as individual issues trials would be inevitable and the Ontario Energy Board's complaint process offered a superior alternative for resolving the billing disputes.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market moved for approval of six settlements totaling $51.5 million.

The court reviewed the settlements in light of the estimated range of total damages, the litigation risks, and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

Finding the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlements.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion to certify a securities class action for settlement purposes, approve a $12.5 million settlement, and approve class counsel fees of $3,437,500.

The action involved allegations of misrepresentation and failure to make timely disclosure regarding mining operations.

Despite earlier dismissals of certification and leave motions, the parties reached a settlement while a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada was pending.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, certified the action for settlement purposes, and approved the requested counsel fees.

The appellants, trustees of a pension fund, sought leave under the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a $4 billion class action against Kinross Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations regarding two gold mines.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable possibility of success for the statutory claims due to flawed expert evidence, and consequently denied certification for the common law claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the motion judge's assessment of the leave test and concluding that a class action was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims due to the need for individualized inquiries into reliance.