Ronald Podolny

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a proposed class proceeding against the manufacturers of the anti-coagulant drug Pradaxa.

The appellants alleged the respondents breached a duty to warn that there was no antidote for the drug.

The motions judge found that the duty to warn was not a common issue, concluding there was no basis in fact that the failure to warn was a source of harm common across the class.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the motions judge did not err in principle or impermissibly weigh competing expert evidence, but correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test using undisputed evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order denying an amendment to the class definition to include all downstream purchasers of LCD panels and products.

The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, noting that the motion judge properly exercised discretion under the Class Proceedings Act and correctly characterized the plaintiff's attempt to re-litigate a previously settled issue as an abuse of process.

Leave to appeal was denied.

Following an omnibus motion in a secondary market securities class action, the defendants sought costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs and one co-defendant argued for costs in the cause.

The court ordered costs in the cause, noting that the omnibus motion involved novel legal issues and was part of the fabric of the whole litigation, making it fairest that the ultimate victor in the action receive the costs.

This class action involved two motions: approval of three settlements totaling $39.2 million in an FX market price-fixing conspiracy case, and approval of Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the stage of the proceedings.

However, the court partially denied Class Counsel's request for $9.8 million in fees, approving only an additional $2 million, citing that the achieved recovery (5 cents on the dollar against a potential $1 billion loss) was respectable but not "very good" and that the claimed litigation risks were somewhat exaggerated given prior regulatory findings and U.S. settlements.

The court emphasized the need for diligence in approving contingency fees in settlements to ensure they are provident for class members, not just counsel.

This decision addresses eight motions in a billion-dollar secondary market securities class action.

The court granted motions by SNC-Lavalin and its Outside Directors to strike paragraphs from the Plaintiffs' Amended Reply and dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion to deliver a Fresh as Amended Reply, finding that the Plaintiffs were attempting to plead a new, uncapped liability claim without leave and reintroduce previously rejected allegations of bribery in Libya.

The court also granted motions by the Outside Directors and Michael Novak to strike paragraphs from Riadh Ben Aïssa's Statement of Defence, which similarly attempted to introduce allegations of bribery in Libya and knowledge against co-defendants beyond the scope of the granted leave.

Additionally, the court granted protective orders for the examinations for discovery of Messrs.

Ben Aïssa, Duhaime, and Roy, who faced criminal charges, to protect their Charter rights and the integrity of criminal proceedings, but denied requests to stay or postpone discoveries.

In a proposed national class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 to compel pre-certification discovery from a non-party, Bloomberg LP.

The defendants brought a motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from taking any steps in furtherance of the subpoena without authorization from the Ontario court.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had circumvented Ontario's rules and jurisprudence regarding the discovery of non-parties and pre-certification discovery in class actions.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to control its own process and regulate the examination of non-parties for an Ontario action.

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 in a certified securities class action sought judicial approval of a $17 million settlement and class counsel's legal fees of approximately $4.1 million.

The court expressed concern over the use of boiler-plate affidavits in settlement approvals and required class counsel to provide supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amount fell within a zone of reasonableness.

After reviewing the additional information regarding litigation risks and damages ranges, the court found the settlement to be in the best interests of the class and approved both the settlement and the requested legal fees.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding beer pricing and market allocation in Ontario sought leave under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act to discontinue the action against the LCBO and treat it as an unnamed co-conspirator.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the discontinuance should occur, if at all, only after the close of pleadings, as the remaining defendants had not yet filed statements of defence and might assert cross-claims or third-party claims against the LCBO.

The court also found the evidentiary record inadequate to justify discontinuance.

In two proposed medical device products liability class proceedings concerning transvaginal mesh used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, the plaintiffs moved on consent for certification and approval of notice plans.

The court applied the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the pleadings disclosed negligence claims, the proposed classes were identifiable, and the common issues were framed narrowly enough around devices using the same mesh to treat the same condition.

Distinguishing an earlier unsuccessful mesh certification case, the court found some basis in fact for common design defect issues in each action when treated discretely.

The court also approved the certification notices, dissemination plans, and opt-out form.

Both certification motions were granted.

The applicant physician sought a declaration that the hospital board's decision to revoke his privileges mid-term was automatically stayed pending his appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA).

The Divisional Court granted the declaration, finding that the hospital's by-laws and a prior agreement created a legitimate expectation that the applicant was entitled to a formal hearing.

Because a hearing was required 'otherwise by law', the SPPA applied, triggering the automatic stay provision.

The parties consented to fix costs in the amount of $89,972.43.

The court ordered that the costs be payable within two weeks of the respondent deciding not to appeal, or within two weeks of an order dismissing the respondent's appeal if leave is granted.

If the respondent successfully appeals, costs will be determined by the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to strike the statement of defence of the defendant corporation.

The plaintiff argued that because the corporation was dissolved, it was a non-entity and could not file a defence.

The Divisional Court agreed with the motion judge that it is implicit in the Business Corporations Act that a dissolved corporation permitted to be sued must also be permitted to defend itself.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with the court also noting the motion was moot as the corporation had since been revived.