Court File and Parties

CITATION: Crevier v. Ronkay Management Inc., 2026 ONSC 2195

COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00691555-00CP

DATE: 20260413

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: JESSICA DAWN CREVIER and GAVIN KRAUSE, Plaintiffs

– and –

1351895 ONTARIO LIMITED O/A ELMPARK MANOR APARTMENTS and ONTARIO CORPORATION 256199 o/a RONKAY MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants

BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan

COUNSEL: Darryl Singer and Mathura Santhirasegaram, for the Plaintiffs Avi Sharabi, for the Defendants

HEARD: April 7, 2026

SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

[1] The parties seek court approval of a settlement of the action under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, SO 1992, c. 6 ("CPA").

[2] This class action relates to claims brought by the residents of a high-rise residential building at 235 Gosford Boulevard, Toronto, against the owner and manager of the building for damages suffered in relation to a fire that occurred on November 15, 2019. The fire resulted in the displacing of hundreds of residents in the building and, tragically, the death of one resident.

[3] A report by the Fire Marshall concluded that the fire started in unit 808 when a resident placed a space heater too close to flammable material. The Plaintiffs claim that the residents were forced to have space heaters because the Defendants did not keep the building adequately heated. There were also allegedly some electrical problems in the building.

[4] The Statement of Claim was issued on February 10, 2020. The action was certified under section 5(1) of the CPA on August 16, 2022: Crevier v. Ronkay Management Inc., 2022 ONSC 4710. The terms of a proposed Settlement Agreement dated as of March 4, 2026 were agreed upon at a pre-trial conference before Justice Chalmers held on October 24, 2025. Notice of the settlement and of this hearing has been given to the class members pursuant to my endorsement of March 18, 2026: Crevier v. Ronkay Management Inc., 2026 ONSC 1617.

[5] None of the class members has opted out of the settlement. One class member has objected without stating any particular reason. One of the representative Plaintiffs, Jessica Crevier, prefers that any remaining settlement funds after the distribution be directed to the Canadian Red Cross instead of to Pro Bono Ontario, the organization named in the settlement agreement. Otherwise, she does not oppose the settlement.

[6] The overall settlement amount to be paid by the Defendants is $650,000. Resident class members will receive $1,119.63 each (per individual claimant, not per unit in the building). Any leftover funds after the first distribution will be distributed on a pro rata basis up to $5,000 per resident. There is also a visitors class, whose members will receive $25.00 each.

[7] Class Counsel will seek approval of CAD $189,432.72 to cover their fees, disbursements and taxes, to be paid exclusively from the settlement amount. There will also be a settlement administration fee of $55,000, to be administered by class counsel. This fee is substantially less than the best quote received from administration firms at $161,000. In addition, a $10,000 honorarium is proposed for each of the representative Plaintiffs. After that, Pro Bono Ontario will receive the balance.

[8] The settlement was entered into following arm's length negotiations between the parties. Each was represented by experienced counsel. The settlement itself was mediated by Justice Chalmers who has substantial experience with this kind of claim.

[9] Establishing liability was always going to be a challenge for the class, given that the Fire Marshall had determined that the Defendants could not be blamed for fire itself. While class counsel did have a potentially viable theory of the case based on the Defendants' alleged failure to provide adequate heating, the success of that theory was never guaranteed.

[10] Given the nature of the claim and its challenges in law, the Plaintiffs and class would likely not have done better at trial, and there was always a chance that they could have done substantially worse. The litigation would have been an expensive endeavor. Given these considerations and the amount of time and effort put into the case by the class and its counsel, the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class: see Gordon v. 837690 Ontario Limited, 2025 ONSC 6148, at para. 22.

[11] The settlement achieves access to justice for the class, judicial economy, and behavioural modification of the Defendants. Many of the class members are low income and vulnerable. As a result of this settlement, class members will obtain meaningful compensation and the Defendants will likely take greater care in fulfilling their maintenance obligations.

[12] Class counsel also asks for approval of a 25% contingency fee plus disbursements and taxes, which amounts to a total of $189,432.72. The disbursements amount to $30,340.02, disbursements, inclusive of HST.

[13] In Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Co., 2011 ONCA 233, at paragraphs 80-81, Justice Juriansz set out the general principles that apply to the assessment of class counsel fees:

a) the factual and legal complexities of the matters dealt with;

b) the risk undertaken;

c) the degree of responsibility assumed by class counsel;

d) the monetary value of the matters in issue;

e) the importance of the matter to the class;

f) the degree of skill and competence demonstrated by class counsel;

g) the results achieved;

h) the ability of the class to pay;

i) the expectations of the class as to the amount of the fees;

j) the opportunity cost to class counsel in the expenditure of time in pursuit of the litigation and settlement.

[14] These factors all point in favour of approving class counsel's fees.

[15] Contingency fees that are fully understood and accepted by the representative Plaintiffs are presumptively valid and enforceable: Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation, 2013 ONSC 7686, at para. 8. Here, it has been made clear that the representative Plaintiffs understand the 25% arrangement and have accepted it.

[16] Justice Strathy has pointed out that the 24% to 36% range is typical for contingency fees in Ontario class actions, and that this generally reflects an appropriate ratio of risk to reward for class counsel Baker (Estate) v. Sony BMG Music (Canada) Inc., 2011 ONSC 71.

[17] Class counsel fees are fair and reasonable as requested.

Disposition

[18] The settlement between the parties is approved.

[19] Counsel fees, disbursements, honoraria, administrative fees, tax and other expenditures of the settlement funds and ancillary orders are hereby approved.

[20] Class counsel's fees and disbursements are approved.

[21] There will be an Order to go as submitted by class counsel. I would ask class counsel to send a draft Order to my assistant in Word format.

Date: April 13, 2026 Morgan J.