Samantha Gordon

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the FX Market brought a motion to certify the action for settlement purposes and approve settlements with four groups of defendants (Barclays, HSBC, RBS, and Standard Chartered PLC).

The court reviewed the motion record and found that all criteria for certification under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied, even with a less rigorous application in a settlement context.

The motion was granted, certifying the action for settlement purposes and approving the settlements.

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.

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 self-represented plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order staying their civil action pending the final disposition of related criminal proceedings against one of the plaintiffs.

The civil action alleged various torts and Charter breaches arising from wiretap authorizations that led to the criminal charges.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court noted that the fundamental issue in the civil claim—the lawfulness of the wiretap authorization—was identical to a key issue in the criminal case, making the circumstances exceptional enough to warrant a stay.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to add several parties, including Watts and Gayton, as defendants in an action arising from a fatal scalding incident in a retirement home bathtub.

Watts and Gayton opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired and they would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the plumbing apparatus was no longer available for inspection.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the identities of the proposed defendants within the limitation period, as they could have obtained this information by requiring timely delivery of the original defendants' statements of defence.

The motion to add Watts and Gayton was dismissed.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH brought a motion seeking approval of a Settlement Agreement and a Sale Transaction with the Bank of Montreal, as well as an order sealing a Confidential Supplement containing unredacted transaction details.

The court applied the Soundair principles and the Sierra Club test, finding the settlement and sale to be fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the estate.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect commercially sensitive information that could prejudice ongoing negotiations with other parties.

The motion was granted on consent.

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 appellants abandoned their appeal before the respondent began preparing oral arguments, although the respondent's factum had already been filed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

After hearing the cross-appeal and submissions on costs, the court awarded $25,000 in costs to the respondent, noting the complexity of the record.

The cross-appellant appealed the trial judge's deletion of the word 'sham' and the removal of accounting and seizure remedies from the formal judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision to omit the factual finding of a 'sham' from the declaration that the transaction was void.

However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, granting the accounting and seizure remedies against the corporate defendant, but not against the individual who was not a party to the trial.

The trial judgment was varied accordingly.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the respondent telecommunications company for intentional infliction of mental suffering, invasion of privacy, and breach of statute arising from collection calls for an overdue account.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge correctly applied the legal tests for intentional infliction of mental suffering and invasion of privacy, and made no palpable and overriding error in rejecting the appellant's medical evidence.

The court also upheld the finding that the Collection Agencies Act did not apply to the respondent's in-house collection efforts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.