3 total
The court certified a class action on consent against a bank for charging duplicative NSF fees.
The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the defendant bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment due to the bank's practice of charging duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debits.
The motion for certification was brought with the defendant's consent.
The court applied the five-part test under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues were raised, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was adequate.
The court granted the certification order.
The court approved identical third-party funding agreements in four related class actions against major banks.
The Superior Court of Justice approved identical third-party funding agreements in four related class actions against major Canadian banks.
The actions allege that the banks charged duplicative non-sufficient funds fees on single dishonoured pre-authorized debits.
The court, applying Section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found the agreements to be fair and reasonable, noting the staged success fee was comparable to or more advantageous than the Class Proceedings Fund levy.
The court confirmed the agreements preserved plaintiff control over litigation, ensured the funder's financial capacity for adverse costs, and included appropriate confidentiality and deemed undertaking provisions.
The defendants took no position on the motions.
Claims Administrator may consider all youth segregation placements in Youth Records, not just those in Claim Form.
The Representative Plaintiff in a class action regarding youth segregation brought a motion for directions concerning the interpretation of the Claims Procedure in the approved Settlement Agreement.
The dispute centered on whether the Claims Administrator and Adjudicator could consider youth segregation placements documented in a claimant's Youth Records but not explicitly listed in their Claim Form.
The court applied principles of contract interpretation and concluded that the Settlement Agreement did not restrict the use of Youth Records to merely corroborating the Claim Form.
The court directed that the Administrator and Adjudicator may award compensation for all eligible placements documented in the Youth Records, regardless of whether they were referred to in the Claim Form.