Sinziana Hennig

The court held a case conference to settle the terms of a certification order following a decision to certify a class action regarding alleged price-fixing of packaged bread.

The court reviewed competing draft orders and approved the producer defendants' draft with specific amendments, including adjustments to the definition of packaged bread, the class definition, and the retention of constructive trust as a common issue.

The proposed representative plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim against Maxar Technologies Inc. and its directors/officers, alleging failures to properly impair assets and recognize revenue under IFRS.

The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert evidence on IFRS due to lack of qualifications and impartiality, and struck portions of their reply evidence as impermissible case-splitting.

Relying on the defendants' admitted expert evidence, the court found no credible evidence that Maxar's financial statements contained material misrepresentations.

The motion for leave was dismissed as there was no reasonable possibility of success at trial, and the related certification motion was consequently dismissed.

Class counsel sought approval of fees representing 25 percent of a $770,000 partial settlement, as well as disbursements.

The court approved the disbursements but declined to approve the requested 25 percent fee at this stage.

The court found the hourly rates used by counsel to be grossly excessive, distorting the value of docketed time.

Noting that the litigation remained in its procedural infancy after six years, the court fixed the fee award at $100,000 plus HST, without prejudice to counsel's right to seek additional amounts upon further settlement or completion of the certification motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The moving defendants sought a temporary stay of the plaintiff's certification motion pending the determination of a certification motion in a related price-fixing class action involving different electronic components.

The defendants argued that a stay would promote efficiency as the expert evidence and methodology were substantially similar in both actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the actions involved different products, time periods, and parties, and that an indefinite delay would be unfair to the plaintiff class and contrary to the goals of judicial economy and access to justice.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.

The respondent retailers brought a motion to strike an application by an animal rights organization and its founder, who sought a declaration that the use of glue traps by members of the public violates the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code and the OSPCA Act.

The court found that the applicants did not meet the threshold for public interest standing, as a declaratory application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issue to court when other avenues, such as private prosecutions or complaints to enforcement bodies, had not been pursued.

The motion to strike was granted in part.

An employer sought an interlocutory injunction enforcing a non‑competition covenant against a former executive who joined a competitor.

The employer alleged breach of a 2008 employment agreement and argued that, where a clear negative covenant is breached, the usual injunction test should not apply.

The court applied a modified RJR‑MacDonald test and held the employer failed to establish a strong prima facie case because the covenant may have been superseded by a later agreement and was arguably overly broad and unnecessary to protect legitimate interests.

The court also noted that the inevitable disclosure doctrine is not recognized in Canada and that evidence of irreparable harm was speculative.

The motion to enjoin the employee and the competitor was dismissed, although the employee was ordered not to disclose confidential information or solicit the employer’s customers.