Sean Kugler

This decision concerns a certified class proceeding that is progressing towards a settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to appoint Verita Global as the administrator for the implementation of the proposed settlement.

Class counsel, after a request for proposals process, recommended Verita Global based on its extensive experience, capacity to serve vulnerable individuals, communication abilities, reporting, budget, and cybersecurity certification.

The court found class counsel's choice appropriate and approved the appointment of Verita Global as the settlement administrator.

The court addressed two related putative class proceedings concerning predatory equipment lease agreements.

The plaintiffs sought to amend pleadings, add parties, consolidate the actions, certify the consolidated proceeding for settlement, and approve the notice plan.

The court granted all motions, finding that the criteria for class certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met in the context of a proposed settlement, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially given ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The notice plan for the settlement approval hearing was also approved.

The plaintiff, Erwin Banfi, brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees against multiple municipal and provincial defendants concerning alleged increased flood risk and reduced property values due to overdevelopment in Oakville.

The action, initially premised on property diminution, shifted focus due to difficulties in proving causation and quantifying individual damages.

The proposed settlement involved a $500,000 payment by defendants to the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation for a flood education and protection program for class members, and class counsel fees of $495,000.

The court approved the cy-près settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the litigation's challenges and the material benefit provided to class members.

Class counsel fees and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The plaintiff moved for leave to file a fresh as amended statement of claim in a proposed class proceeding alleging price-fixing of large panel LCD products.

The amendment sought to add a new named plaintiff and revise the pleading to include LCD panels as a separate defined category.

The court held the amendments were substantive, not cosmetic, because they expanded the action to a wider range of products and a larger putative class.

The proposed added plaintiff was not already within the pleaded class definition, so the tolling provision in s. 28(1) of the Class Proceedings Act did not suspend its limitation periods.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding liquid crystal display (LCD) panels.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Competition Act, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claims (discoverability).

The court also held that the discoverability principle applies to the limitation period in s. 36(4) of the Competition Act.

In a Commercial List costs decision following a summary judgment motion in a shot-gun buy/sell dispute, two defendants who had obtained dismissal of the action against them sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court rejected substantial indemnity because no offers to settle had been made and the allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation were peripheral to the core contractual dispute.

Applying Rule 57 and proportionality principles, the court reduced the claimed partial indemnity amount to reflect the moving parties’ subordinate role on the motion and to exclude fees of non-record corporate and estates solicitors.

The moving parties were awarded all-inclusive partial indemnity costs of $91,400 payable within 30 days.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a shotgun buy-sell offer in a partnership dispute.

The plaintiffs claimed the offer was invalid, and alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and oppression.

The court found that the shotgun buy-sell offer was valid and complied with the partnership agreement.

The court also dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression, finding that the defendants were entitled to exercise their contractual rights.

However, the court directed a trial on three specific breach of contract issues relating to closing arrangements and the calculation of net earnings.