Robert S. Russell

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 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 defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The Immunity Applicant Witnesses sought a declaration of informer privilege in an ongoing Competition Act inquiry into alleged price-fixing.

The Commissioner of Competition opposed, arguing that applying informer privilege would compromise the operation of the Immunity Program.

The court found that informer privilege attached to the witnesses from the outset of their participation in the Immunity Program due to broad confidentiality assurances.

However, the court also concluded that the witnesses had made a clear, express, and informed future waiver of this privilege, effective only if and when they are called to testify at a trial.

The application for informer privilege was granted, but with the condition of future waiver for trial testimony.

This appeal concerns the applicable test for determining jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants (AFCs) in a class action involving allegations of conspiracy to fix prices of air freight shipping services for shipments from or to Canada between 2000 and 2006.

The motion judge had rejected the real and substantial connection test and held that jurisdiction could only be established if AFCs were present in Ontario or had consented to the court's jurisdiction.

The motion judge also declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the real and substantial connection test applies to class actions involving AFCs and that jurisdiction may be established where there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter and Ontario, common issues exist between representative plaintiffs and AFCs, and procedural safeguards of adequate representation, notice, and opt-out rights are provided.

The court also found that forum non conveniens did not apply as no clearly more appropriate forum existed.

The appellant appealed an order allowing the respondents to proceed to trial on all claims after a default judgment was set aside.

At the initial trial, the judge dismissed the respondents' claims for interference with contractual and economic relations but granted an injunction and damages for false and misleading advertising.

The Court of Appeal held that issue estoppel precluded the respondents from relitigating the dismissed interference claims, even though the default judgment against the appellant was set aside.

However, the Court allowed the false and misleading advertising claims to proceed to trial for both an injunction and damages.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Crown appealed from the dismissal of its appeal from an acquittal on a provincial offences charge under s. 84.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent's truck lost the dual wheels, hub and axle on one side as a single unit, but the wheels themselves did not separate from their fasteners.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the court held that s. 84.1 addresses the specific public safety concern of "flying wheels" and applies only when the wheel itself separates from the vehicle.

Because the wheel fastening mechanism did not fail and only a larger assembly detached, the acquittal was properly upheld.