Robert E. Kwinter

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in an emissions defeat device class action, the successful defendants sought costs totaling $965,012 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for a maximum award of $125,000, noting their own costs were $550,263.

The court fixed costs at $560,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues, the number of defendant groups, and the costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs themselves.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a US$7 million settlement with the Bosch defendants regarding the installation of 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles, as well as approval of class counsel's legal fees.

The settlement targeted 'leftover damages' for class members who were not made whole under previous settlements with the vehicle manufacturers.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the pragmatic distribution protocol and the low number of objections.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee, finding it presumptively valid and noting that the distribution mechanism would ensure high take-up by eligible claimants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding an alleged emissions defeat device in certain diesel-engine vehicles.

The defendants had already initiated a recall to repair the defeat device at no cost, rendering the vehicles compliant with emissions regulations.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of compensable harm, such as paying a premium price or experiencing reduced fuel economy post-repair.

Without compensable harm, the court held that a class action would not advance the goals of access to justice, behaviour modification, or judicial economy.

Following the dismissal of an appeal and motions for leave to act as representative plaintiffs by objecting class members (Home Depot and Wal-Mart), the representative plaintiffs and several defendants sought costs.

The objecting class members argued they were immune from costs under s. 31(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction exists under ss. 14(1) and (2) to award costs against class members who unsuccessfully seek to represent the class to object to a settlement.

The court awarded costs to the moving parties, finding the delay in filing submissions was justified.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Class members who are not representative plaintiffs have no direct right of appeal from an order approving a settlement in a certified class action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the decision in Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada remains good law and has not been superseded by subsequent decisions.

A settlement approval order is neither a judgment on common issues nor a determination of aggregate damages, and therefore class members cannot seek leave to appeal under section 30(5) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Permitting individual class members to appeal settlement approvals would introduce uncertainty into settlement negotiations, undermine the authority of representative plaintiffs and class counsel, and impede the resolution of class actions.

Two sets of appellants (manufacturers of optical disc drives) appealed the certification of a price-fixing class proceeding in British Columbia.

The majority held that the discoverability rule applies to extend the two-year limitation period in s. 36(4)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, that fraudulent concealment can toll a limitation period without requiring a special relationship between the parties, that umbrella purchasers (persons who bought from non-defendant manufacturers) have a cause of action under s. 36(1)(a), that s. 36(1) does not bar concurrent common law and equitable claims, and that a plaintiff's expert methodology need only establish that overcharges reached the indirect-purchaser level to certify loss as a common issue.

Côté J. dissented in part, finding that the discoverability rule does not apply to s. 36(4)(a)(i) and that umbrella purchasers have no cause of action under s. 36(1).

Both appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for judicial approval of 13 discrete auto part class action settlements with the HIAMS, Mitsuba, NGK, and Sumitomo Riko defendants, totaling approximately $14.8 million.

The court found that each of the proposed settlements fell within a zone of reasonableness, noting that the Canadian settlement amounts were proportionate to related American settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, plus disbursements and taxes, finding it presumptively valid.