Won-Jin Kim

In a proposed national class action concerning alleged negligent packaging of the contraceptive drug Alysena 28, the plaintiffs brought a motion relating to the identity of class counsel and seeking injunctive relief against a former co-counsel.

The dispute arose following the breakdown of a professional relationship between two lawyers who had participated in advancing the proposed class proceeding, leading to competing communications with putative class members and the existence of a rival certified class action in Alberta.

The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over counsel and class proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Solicitors Act.

The court dismissed both the motion and cross-motion, disqualified the disputing lawyers from acting for any putative class members, rescinded existing retainer and contingency fee agreements, and ordered the proposed Ontario class action discontinued as a class proceeding subject to possible revival if the Alberta settlement was not approved.

The plaintiff moved for judgment for costs after the defendant accepted a Rule 49 offer to settle shortly before trial.

The court held that an offer providing for payment of $50,000 plus HST "in full and complete satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim" unambiguously included costs, so rule 49.07(5) did not entitle the plaintiff to additional assessed costs.

The court further held that extrinsic evidence of pre-trial discussions was inadmissible under rule 50.09 and settlement privilege, and declined to dispense with that rule under rule 2.03.

The motion was dismissed.

In a class proceeding concerning a college program that failed to deliver promised professional designations, the court issued an addendum addressing the residual market value of the diploma received by class members.

The court reconsidered supplementary submissions regarding whether the diploma had measurable value independent of the promised designations.

While the plaintiffs argued the diploma had little or no value and the defendant contended it retained full value, the court determined that the diploma had limited residual value based on evidence about employment outcomes, educational background of students, and survey data.

The court concluded that the residual value of the diploma was approximately 15% of the direct costs incurred by class members.

Aggregate damages were therefore fixed at 85% of the direct costs for students who completed the program.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion for a stay of a case management direction pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The case management judge had ordered that the parties were not required to exchange affidavits of documents prior to a focused summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the three branches of the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court held there was no serious issue to be tried regarding the discretionary case management order, no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the action to move forward.

In a certified class proceeding concerning allegedly defective hip implants, the court addressed issues relating to notice to class members and the identification of potential class members.

The court ordered the defendants to make reasonable efforts to locate names and addresses of implant class members contained in product adverse event reports and other related sources where the information was available and the province of residence was not British Columbia or Quebec.

However, the court declined to require an extensive manual internal review of all potential incident reports, finding such a requirement would be disproportionately burdensome and would not materially improve the notice program.

The court also determined the proper title for the certification notice and class counsel’s website, concluding that inclusion of the manufacturer’s name alongside the product identifier was reasonably necessary to inform the intended class.

Following certification of a proposed class action concerning recalled metal-on-metal hip implants, the court determined the appropriate costs award for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs, as the successful parties on certification, sought over $700,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court found the claim grossly excessive due to over-lawyering, excessive hours, and hourly rates exceeding the applicable guideline ranges.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, guidance from appellate jurisprudence, and historical averages for certification motion costs awards, the court significantly reduced the claim.

The court emphasized transparency and predictability in costs awards and fixed costs at $175,000 all-inclusive payable forthwith.

The appellant college appealed a trial judgment finding it negligently misrepresented the benefits of its graduate international business management program in its course calendar, breaching the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a special relationship existed giving rise to a duty of care, that students are 'consumers' under the CPA, and that proof of individual reliance is not required to establish an unfair practice under the CPA.

Invesco sought leave to appeal orders sanctioning a Plan of Compromise and Reorganization under the CCAA and approving a settlement that released Ernst & Young LLP from claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals failed to meet the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings.

The appeal of the Sanction Order was moot, and the issues regarding the third-party release in the Settlement Order were governed by the court's prior decision in ATB Financial.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal considered written submissions regarding the costs of the motion before the lower court.

The Court ordered that the costs of the motion be remitted to the motion judge for reconsideration in light of the appellate reasons.

The Ontario Plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $117 million settlement and release of claims against Ernst & Young LLP within the CCAA restructuring of Sino-Forest Corporation.

Several institutional investors objected, arguing that the settlement improperly extinguished their opt-out rights under the Class Proceedings Act and that the third-party release was not justified under the CCAA.

The court approved the settlement and release, finding them fair, reasonable, and rationally related to the restructuring plan.

The court held that claims compromised within a CCAA proceeding do not afford opt-out rights, and the settlement provided a substantial benefit to stakeholders.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action appealed a motion judge's decision striking out several claims from their statement of claim against an insurer regarding the sale and administration of universal life insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and deceit and fraud, finding it was not plain and obvious these claims would fail.

The court upheld the striking of allegations concerning releases because the plaintiffs failed to request specific relief for those who signed them.

The applicant, Sino-Forest Corporation, sought an order sanctioning a plan of compromise and reorganization under the CCAA.

The plan was supported by the vast majority of creditors, including noteholders, auditors, and underwriters, but opposed by certain funds.

The court found that the statutory requirements were met, the creditors were properly classified, and the plan, including its third-party releases, was fair and reasonable.

The motion was granted and the plan was sanctioned.

Institutional investors sought an adjournment of a motion to sanction a restructuring plan under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, arguing that provisions in the proposed plan concerning settlements and releases for third party defendants could improperly affect their ability to pursue claims in related securities class actions.

The court reviewed the plan and concluded that approval of any specific settlement, including a proposed auditor settlement, was not before the court on the sanction motion and would require further court orders and satisfaction of multiple conditions precedent.

The court held that any potential impact on investors’ claims could be addressed in future proceedings where the specific settlements and releases would be considered.

As the objections were premature and the debtor faced time and funding constraints, the request for an adjournment was denied.

The plaintiffs, former students of a post-graduate international business program, brought a class action against the defendant college.

The college's course calendar represented that the program provided the opportunity to complete three industry designations in addition to a graduate certificate.

The students discovered that the college had no agreements with the industry associations and could not confer the designations.

The court found that the college was negligent in making the misrepresentation and breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as the students were 'consumers' under the Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to monetary compensation, with damages to be determined in a subsequent phase.

The appellants succeeded on a limitation issue in a class action appeal and sought costs for the appeal and the motion below.

The Court of Appeal declined to alter the motion judge's order that costs of the motion remain in the cause.

For the appeal, the court recognized the appellants' success but modified the costs award because the appeal raised a novel issue of law and involved access to justice considerations in a class action.

The court awarded costs of the appeal in the cause, fixing them at $20,000 for the Timminco appellants, $20,000 for the Photon Consulting appellants, and $10,000 for the Walsh appellant.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought orders to have a motion for approval of a third party financing and indemnity agreement heard without notice to the defendant, in camera, and with the documents sealed.

They argued that disclosure would compromise solicitor-client privilege and litigation strategy.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the defendant is affected by the funding agreement and entitled to notice and participation.

The court further held that third party funding agreements are not privileged, or if they are, the privilege is waived when applying for court approval.

The open court principle requires the funding motion to be heard publicly, though the court provided specific procedural directions for the future motion.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by the defendants.

The statement of claim asserted common law causes of action and indicated an intention to seek leave to assert a statutory cause of action under section 138.3 of the Securities Act.

Facing a potential limitation issue, the plaintiff successfully moved for a declaration that the limitation period was suspended under section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a statutory cause of action under section 138.3 is not 'asserted' within the meaning of section 28 until leave to proceed has been granted.

The representative plaintiffs in two certified class proceedings regarding allegedly defective implantable defibrillators appealed orders of the motion judge.

The motion judge had ordered the bifurcation of discovery and trial of common issues relating to the quantification of compensation for waiver of tort from the liability issues.

In one of the actions, the motion judge also refused to certify punitive damages as a common issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to bifurcate the proceedings to ensure a fair and expeditious determination.

The Court also upheld the refusal to certify punitive damages as a common issue, agreeing that entitlement to punitive damages could not be rationally determined without first determining individual issues of causation and compensatory damages.

The applicant, a police officer facing disciplinary proceedings, sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's interlocutory decision dismissing his motion to stay the charges for abuse of process and lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the applicant should proceed through the statutory appeal process after a final decision.

The Court also addressed the jurisdictional argument on its merits, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably and correctly interpreted the Police Services Act in concluding that an investigation need not be entirely completed before a notice of hearing is issued.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying the action as a class proceeding regarding allegedly defective heart devices.

The defendants argued the motions judge misconstrued the 'some basis in fact' standard and that the class definition was overly inclusive.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the evidentiary principles from Hollick v. Toronto and made factual findings entitled to deference.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.