Vanessa Voakes

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a settlement and class counsel fees in a class action regarding a data breach on the defendants' online photocentre website.

The settlement provided for credit monitoring and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses up to a maximum exposure of $1.25 million.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved the settlement along with class counsel fees of $250,000.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Walmart Canada Inc. and PNI Digital Media Inc. following a data breach at Walmart's online photocentre.

The parties reached a settlement agreement providing for credit monitoring and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses up to a combined maximum of $750,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes.

The court found that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion.

The defendants moved for a stay of a civil action on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in a later energy supply agreement, or alternatively sought an extension of time to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff alleged that the agreements were void and sought damages for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation relating to the formation of the contracts, asserting that the agreements were not authorized and were based on misrepresentations regarding energy savings.

The court held that the arbitration clause applied only to disputes “under” the agreement and did not encompass a challenge to the existence or validity of the agreement itself.

As the dispute concerned the validity of the agreements rather than performance under them, it fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The motion to stay the action was therefore dismissed, though the defendants were granted additional time to deliver their statements of defence.

The plaintiff, Bombardier Inc., sued the Republic of Estonia and its state-owned airline, Estonian Air, alleging tortious interference in an aircraft purchase agreement.

The Republic brought a motion to stay the action against it, claiming state immunity under the State Immunity Act.

The court found that the Republic's waiver of immunity in a shareholders' agreement did not extend to the plaintiff, a non-party.

Furthermore, the commercial activity exception did not apply, as the Republic's role as a shareholder was not inherently commercial in the context of the transaction, and there was no evidence of the state unlawfully interfering with the purchase.

The motion was granted and the action against the Republic was permanently stayed.