Rezmuves v. Hohots, 2019 ONSC 4871

1Pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992,¹ before the Court are three motions for certification for settlement purposes of three proposed class actions against lawyers for professional negligence. The defendants respectively are Viktor Serhey Hohots, Joseph Stephen Farkas, and the Estate of Erzsebet Jazsi. Messrs. Hohots and Farkas and Ms. Jazsi practiced immigration and refugee law from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2013.

2The Plaintiffs Istvan Remuves, Erno Pongo, and Istvan Horvath were clients of Mr. Hohots. The Plaintiff Renata Galamb was a client of Mr. Farkas, and the Plaintiff Samuel Horvath was a client of the late Ms. Jaszi. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants were professionally negligent and in breach of their fiduciary duties in representing their clients who were Roma refugee claimants fleeing the assaults of a far-right organization in Hungary known as the Hungarian Guard. The clients applications for refugee protection failed or did not proceed.

3The proposed Class Counsel are Flaherty McCarthy LLP.

4The proposed Class Definition is:

All refugee claimants (on their own behalf and on behalf of their spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, siblings or dependents):

(a) who came to Canada from Hungary, and

(b) who retained either of Viktor Serhey Hohots, Joseph Stephen Farkas and Erzsebet Jaszi (now deceased) between January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2013, to make a refugee application, and

(c) whose refugee claim failed or did not proceed while they were represented by either of Viktor Serhey Hohots, Joseph Stephen Farkas and Erzsebet Jaszi (now deceased).

5The proposed common issues are:

1. Did the Defendant owe a duty of care to the Plaintiffs and Class Members?

2. Did the Defendant breach his or her duty of care to the Plaintiffs and Class Members?

3. Did the Defendant owe a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs and Class Members?

6After more than one year of negotiations, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are in the process of finalizing an agreement to settle the class actions.

7Pursuant to s. 5 (1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court shall certify a proceeding as a class proceeding if: (1) the pleadings disclose a cause of action; (2) there is an identifiable class; (3) the claims or defences of the class members raise common issues of fact or law; (4) a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure; and (5) there is a representative plaintiff or defendant who would adequately represent the interests of the class without conflict of interest and there is a workable litigation plan.

8Where certification is sought for the purposes of settlement, all the criteria for certification must still be met.² However, compliance with the certification criteria is not as strictly required because of the different circumstances associated with settlements.³

9I am satisfied that the criterion for certification for settlement purposes are satisfied in the immediate case.

10For these reasons, I grant the Plaintiffs’ motions.

Perell, J.