Sean M. Grayson

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes arising from allegations that condominium purchasers were overcharged for development charges by the developers.

The parties negotiated a settlement establishing a $578,000 fund to compensate class members, with refunds representing approximately 52–73 per cent of the disputed charges.

The court held that the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied even in the settlement context.

The court further found that the negotiated settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class despite a single objection seeking full restitution.

Class counsel’s contingency fee of $144,500 (25 per cent of the settlement fund) was approved as reasonable given the work performed, litigation risks, and results achieved.

Following the Court of Appeal’s reversal of a certification order in a proposed class action alleging misclassification of supervisors and unpaid overtime under the Canada Labour Code, the motion judge was directed to fix the defendant’s costs of the certification motion.

The defendant sought over $1 million in partial indemnity costs, arguing that it had achieved complete success and that the litigation involved substantial complexity and financial exposure.

The representative plaintiff and the Law Foundation argued that costs should be nominal or substantially reduced because the proceeding raised novel legal issues and public interest considerations under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Applying issue estoppel arising from the Court of Appeal’s reasons and considering the purposes of class action costs, the court fixed costs at $475,000 all inclusive.

Following the successful appeal by the defendant overturning the certification of a proposed class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $300,000.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued that no costs or a maximum of $50,000 should be awarded, citing the novel legal issues and public interest nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the novel points of law and access to justice considerations under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but held that the Act does not insulate representative plaintiffs from adverse costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $60,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act and to certify a class proceeding against the defendants for misrepresentation, conspiracy, and oppression.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fabricated a financial crisis by including a 'going concern' note in the company's financial statements to artificially depress the share price, allowing insiders to acquire shares cheaply.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial, as the financial disclosures were factual, required by GAAP, and made after reasonable investigation.

The court also refused to certify the conspiracy claim due to a lack of factual basis and struck the oppression claim, ruling that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over an oppression remedy under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant railway company misclassified first line supervisors as managerial employees to avoid paying overtime under the Canada Labour Code.

The motion judge certified the action but significantly redrafted the common issues, rejecting the plaintiff's proposed misclassification issue due to a lack of commonality.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge correctly rejected the misclassification issue because individualized assessments of job duties were required.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in certifying a reframed common issue about the minimum requirements for managerial status, as it suffered from the same lack of commonality.

The certification order was set aside.

The applicant, the former president and CEO of the respondent company, sought a declaration that the company's management information circular was not properly authorized and contained material misrepresentations regarding his departure.

He argued the circular falsely stated he 'stepped down' instead of being terminated without cause, and omitted his potential $1 million severance claim.

The court found the circular was validly authorized through retroactive ratification.

While the court agreed the disclosure was not entirely forthright, it dismissed the application because the applicant failed to prove the alleged misrepresentations were material to a reasonable shareholder voting on the election of directors.

A mining company sought indemnification from the federal government for environmental remediation costs associated with uranium tailings produced under Cold War-era fixed-price uranium supply contracts with a Crown corporation.

The plaintiff argued that the contracts contained an implied term guaranteeing profitability or requiring indemnification if later government regulation increased production costs, and alternatively alleged breach of a duty of good faith and unjust enrichment.

The government moved for summary judgment dismissing the action, while the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the proposed implied term was inconsistent with the express fixed‑price structure of the contracts and failed the necessity test for implying contractual terms.

It further held that the doctrine of good faith could not be used to create new obligations inconsistent with the contract, and that the government's enactment of environmental legislation did not constitute contractual bad faith.

The appellant lawyers represented the plaintiffs in a successful class proceeding that declared certain provisions of the Canada Pension Plan invalid, entitling class members to survivor benefits.

The lawyers sought to enforce a first charge on the monetary award for their fees under s. 32(3) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the award constituted a 'benefit' under the CPP, which prohibits assigning or charging benefits under s. 65(1).

The Court found that the CPP prevailed over the CPA, rendering the lawyers' charge void.

The federal government amended the Canada Pension Plan to extend survivor benefits to same-sex partners, but limited eligibility to those whose partners died on or after January 1, 1998, and precluded payments for months before July 2000.

A class action challenged these temporal limits.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the temporal limits infringed section 15(1) of the Charter and were not justified under section 1.

However, the Court denied fully retroactive relief, finding that the prior exclusion of same-sex partners was based on a reasonable understanding of the law before the Court's landmark decision in M. v. H., and that the government acted in good faith.

The Court also held that estates do not have standing to advance section 15(1) claims.