Sandra A. Forbes

The court approved a $500 million settlement in a national class action concerning a price-fixing conspiracy in the packaged bread market, resolving claims against Loblaw Companies Limited and related entities.

The settlement includes a substantial damages payment, a distribution protocol for class members, and a cooperation agreement by Loblaw to assist in ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

The court also approved class counsel fees and the payout to a third-party funder, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding a failure to plead material facts for a reasonable cause of action and an insufficient evidentiary basis for common issues.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the claim lacked material facts to support a Canadian conspiracy and that there was no sufficient factual basis for the proposed common issues, particularly given the distinct Canadian and U.S. tuna markets.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the lower court's order effectively ended the proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought court approval to discontinue the action without costs and without prejudice to putative class members, except for the named plaintiffs.

The action concerned alleged negligent design of a 'Body Control Module' in certain vehicles.

The discontinuance was sought due to recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence limiting recovery for pure economic losses in product liability cases, which significantly curtailed the prospect of a substantial award for the class.

The defendants consented to the discontinuance.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, and the discontinuance would not prejudice putative class members, as limitation periods remained suspended until discontinuance.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought court approval to discontinue the action without costs and without prejudice to putative class members, except for the named plaintiffs.

The action concerned alleged negligent design of a transmission shift cable in certain vehicles.

The motion for discontinuance was brought due to recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence limiting recovery for pure economic losses in product liability cases, which significantly curtailed the prospect of a substantial award for the putative class.

The defendants consented to the discontinuance.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the putative class members were not prejudiced, and the proposed notice of discontinuance was adequate.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash an appeal of a class certification order in a price-fixing conspiracy case involving packaged bread.

The plaintiffs (appellants) argued the certification order, which defined the class, effectively dismissed claims of excluded persons and was thus a final order appealable under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants (moving parties) contended it was a certification order governed by the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) and that, under the CPA's transitional provisions, the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court found the certification order was a procedural order, not a final one, as it did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Consequently, the appeal provisions of the CPA applied.

Furthermore, the court determined that the pre-2020 amendments to the CPA governed the appeal because the original proceeding was commenced before the amendments came into force.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was therefore quashed.

The plaintiff in a class action sought court approval for a partial settlement agreement with the Kamaya defendants, who were accused of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy for linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment and cooperation benefits for the plaintiff class.

The court, applying principles from the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and relevant case law, found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the monetary amount being at the lower end of the reasonable zone.

The decision emphasized the value of arm's-length negotiation, counsel's recommendation, and the strategic benefits of early cooperation from settling defendants in complex conspiracy litigation.

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 plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy that artificially inflated prices for direct and indirect purchasers in Canada.

The court certified the action solely for the statutory cause of action under section 36 of the Competition Act.

The court excluded 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought from non-defendants) from the class, finding it plain and obvious they lacked a cause of action due to indeterminate liability and lack of restitutionary basis.

The court also declined to certify the common law claims for unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment, holding that they were precluded by the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Competition Act.

The remaining certification criteria were met for the statutory claim.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking certification of a proposed class proceeding against one defendant for settlement purposes.

The claim alleged a conspiracy to raise, maintain, fix, or stabilize gasoline prices in Eastern Ontario contrary to the Competition Act and the common law.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, the proposed class definition was objectively ascertainable, and the existence of the alleged conspiracy constituted a common issue suitable for class determination.

The court further found that the representative plaintiff adequately represented the class and that the proposed settlement agreement contained a workable litigation plan including opt‑out procedures and notice provisions.

Certification for settlement purposes was granted as against the settling defendant.

In a proposed class action alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the optical disc drive (ODD) market contrary to common law and s. 45 of the Competition Act, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the claim to add eighteen additional corporate defendants.

The defendants opposed the amendment on the basis that limitation periods under the Limitations Act and s. 36(4) of the Competition Act had expired.

The court held that at the pleadings amendment stage it was inappropriate to make definitive findings on discoverability or the expiry of limitation periods where the evidentiary record was incomplete.

Although the plaintiff’s evidence regarding due diligence was thin, the court concluded it would be unfair to refuse the amendment solely on the deficient record.

The motion was adjourned to permit the plaintiff to file additional evidence addressing discoverability and diligence.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.