Robert Tighe

The moving defendants sought a temporary stay of the plaintiff's certification motion pending the determination of a certification motion in a related price-fixing class action involving different electronic components.

The defendants argued that a stay would promote efficiency as the expert evidence and methodology were substantially similar in both actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the actions involved different products, time periods, and parties, and that an indefinite delay would be unfair to the plaintiff class and contrary to the goals of judicial economy and access to justice.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff for a status hearing to prevent the action from being dismissed for delay, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs against the only opposing defendant.

The court found that while the defendant's opposition was not unreasonable, he was not insulated from costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $6,000 in costs, payable in the cause, reflecting the additional expense incurred due to the defendant's opposition.

The plaintiff moved for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the set down deadline in an action regarding alleged construction defects in a custom home.

Only one defendant opposed the motion.

The Master found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay, noting that much of it was due to accommodating the defendants' requests.

The Master also found no evidence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted, and a timetable was set for the remaining interlocutory steps.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

On a case management motion, the moving party sought to resolve an impasse over the proper corporate representative for the defendant's continued examination for discovery.

The court found that defence counsel had agreed that the same former building director who had already been examined would be produced for the continuation, and rejected objections based on evasiveness, anticipated undertakings, and expense as speculative or unsupported by the record.

The court ordered that witness to continue as the defendant's discovery witness, subject to a term preserving the defendant's ability to claim related witness expenses as a Tariff A disbursement reserved to the trial judge.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to dismiss the human rights application.

The respondents had argued the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil claim for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that there is no right to reconsider an interim decision that does not finally dispose of substantive issues, and that the respondents were merely attempting to appeal the decision and reargue their case.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding against the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found that while the civil claim arose from similar facts and alleged wrongful dismissal, it did not seek a remedy for an alleged infringement of the Code.

Therefore, the application was not barred by section 34(11) and the request to dismiss was denied.