Russell M. Raikes

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.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making, parenting time, and child support for their six-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and primary care, alleging the mother was neglectful and held unconventional beliefs.

The court found both parents capable but noted their toxic relationship and inability to communicate effectively.

The court granted the mother final decision-making authority on major health and education issues if the parties could not agree, and established a parenting schedule giving the mother primary care (16 overnights per 28-day cycle) and the father 12 overnights.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The respondent father brought a motion to strike portions of the applicant mother's affidavit and for an interim order for joint decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights, for their 17-month-old child.

The court struck portions of the affidavit containing improper expert opinion but excused formatting errors.

The court declined to order joint decision-making, leaving day-to-day decisions with the mother as the primary caregiver.

However, finding it in the child's best interests to foster a strong bond with the father, the court ordered a gradual expansion of the father's parenting time, culminating in alternating weekend overnights, subject to a mold inspection of his residence.

The applicant brought a motion to re-open a family law trial to admit an appraisal report regarding the matrimonial home, which was omitted from the joint document brief due to counsel's inadvertence.

The trial decision had already been released, though judgment was not yet entered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no mutual mistake between counsel regarding the document's inclusion.

Applying the test to re-open a trial, the court held that the evidence was available before trial and could have been adduced with reasonable diligence, and that the principle of finality weighed against re-opening the matter.

The applicants, executors of the deceased's estate, moved for directions regarding the procedure to determine the validity of the deceased's 2015 Will.

The respondent, a daughter excluded from the Will, objected to its validity, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found that the respondent failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold to require the Will to be proved in solemn form, as her claims were based on bald allegations and speculation.

The court directed the applicants to proceed to probate.

The plaintiff in a price-fixing class action sought approval of a settlement with the sole individual defendant.

The settlement provided no monetary compensation but required the defendant to provide extensive cooperation, including an evidentiary proffer, interviews, document exchange, and trial testimony.

The court approved the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, as the defendant's inside information offered significant strategic value against the remaining corporate defendants.

During a trial, the plaintiffs objected to the defendants questioning a witness about a lost estate intake form that was not listed in the defendants' affidavit of documents.

The court found that the defendants breached Rule 30.03(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to list the lost document and explain its absence.

However, the court allowed the questioning to proceed, noting that the document was peripheral to the main issues, mitigating measures were available to the plaintiffs, and the prejudice was minimal.

The court concluded that the failure to disclose was best addressed in costs.

The plaintiffs, acting personally and as Estate Trustees, sued the defendant lawyer and her firm for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation.

The claims arose from the lawyer's representation of the deceased in drafting his Will and a mortgage refinancing transaction, as well as letters the lawyer wrote to third parties after her retainer by the Estate was terminated.

The court dismissed the negligence and fiduciary duty claims, finding no expert evidence of a breach of the standard of care and that the lawyer followed the deceased's instructions.

However, the court found the lawyer defamed the plaintiffs in letters sent to succeeding counsel and the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The letters contained false and disparaging statements and were motivated by malice, defeating the defence of qualified privilege.

The plaintiffs were awarded $61,320 in damages for defamation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a complainant who was 13 years old at the time.

The accused, who was 18, argued he had an honest but mistaken belief that the complainant was 16 and that she consented to the sexual activity.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be fraught with inconsistencies and contradicted by an independent witness.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age, and failed to prove that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

All charges were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to vary a prior court order that required his companies to continue paying remuneration to the respondents pending the completion of a court-ordered share buyout.

The applicant argued that the ongoing payments caused financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic and sought to terminate the payments or treat them as a set-off against the share purchase price.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ongoing remuneration was a foreseeable consequence of the original order requested by the applicant, and the pandemic was not a new fact that would have altered the original decision.

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.

The respondent husband brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The applicant wife opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion requiring the respondent to pay the upfront costs of an updated joint expert income report.

The court dismissed the motion to sever, finding the respondent failed to prove the applicant would not be prejudiced regarding health benefits and noting the respondent's failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court granted the applicant's cross-motion, ordering the respondent to fund the expert report upfront, subject to equalization.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's counsel failing to follow court directions regarding written submissions.

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.

The appellant, Kelly W. Morrison, appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and possession of stolen property, and his sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's consideration of the mental element of criminal harassment, the identification of stolen underwear, and the assessment of witness credibility.

The appellant also argued that the sentencing judge erred by failing to explicitly consider alternatives to incarceration.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law or assessment of evidence, and that the sentence was fit.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to review a judicial interim release order granted to the accused, who faced serious drug trafficking and firearms charges.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace misapprehended the accused's criminal record, failed to consider the surety's inability to supervise, and overemphasized the release plan on the tertiary ground.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the St. Cloud framework and found no error of law, concluding the Justice of the Peace properly weighed the strict house arrest and electronic monitoring conditions against the statutory factors.

The Crown's application was dismissed.

The defendant sought leave to bring a motion for further examination for discovery of the plaintiff, Andrea Belanger, and to compel a first examination for discovery of the minor plaintiff, Zara Belanger.

The court found that leave was required under Rule 48.04(1) for both requests because the defendant had consented to trial adjournments.

Leave for Andrea Belanger's further examination was denied as no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances was shown.

However, leave was granted for Zara Belanger's examination due to her increased age, maturity, and the significant damages claimed on her behalf, with conditions on the scope and duration of the examination.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, commenced an action seeking $20,000,000 in damages against the defendant, the son's former romantic partner.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant negligently scheduled family law motions on the same day as the mother's breast cancer surgery, preventing the son from attending the hospital to support her, which caused her to abandon the surgery.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01(1).

The court applied the Anns test and concluded that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs in these circumstances.

The action was dismissed for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the validity of a prenuptial 'Family Agreement', a claim for unjust enrichment regarding home renovations, ownership of the family dog, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the Family Agreement to be a valid and binding domestic contract, which provided a juristic reason defeating the applicant's unjust enrichment claim.

The court ordered the family dog to remain with the applicant and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent at $43,547.