Payment Options

You can pay your invoice using one of the following methods:

 

  1. Interac e-Transfer: Send funds to payments@paliareroland.com. Please ensure to provide the invoice number and password details to payments@paliareroland.com
  2. Electronic Fund Transfer: Send requests for banking details to payments@paliareroland.com with subject line “Request for EFT details” or contact Paula Wright at 416-646-7406
  3. Credit Card via telephone (Visa or Mastercard only):
    Contact Paula Wright at 416-646-7406
  4. PayPal: We accept all major credit cards through the PayPal portal. To begin, please enter the information required in the fields below:

Accepted credit cards:

We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover cards

You can provide the firm with funds to be held in trust using one of the following methods:

 

  1. Interac e-Transfer: Send funds to trustpayments@paliareroland.com. Please ensure to state your name, file matter number and password details to trustpayments@paliareroland.com.
  2. Credit Card via telephone (Visa or Mastercard only): Contact Paula Wright at 416-646-7406
Our Expertise

Class Actions

Our specialized class action group is a team of talented lawyers with extensive experience in all aspects of class proceedings, from inception through trial and appeals.

The breadth of our class action practice sets us apart from many other firms.

  • The Paliare Roland class action team has decades of experience as class counsel on the plaintiff side.
  • Our team frequently represents defendants on other cases.
  • We are often called on by members of the class action bar for advice, or to mediate their complex class actions.
  • Our insolvency specialists are often retained to provide critical insolvency advice on class actions.
  • We are regularly retained to provide opinions on proposed class actions to litigation funders.
  • The firm has also been appointed by the court to act as amicus curiae.

This extensive experience from a range of perspectives provides the Paliare Roland class action lawyers with unique strategic insights that we bring to bear on each of our cases.

Paliare Roland is ranked by Chambers Global as a leading law firm on plaintiff-side class actions, and a number of our senior partners are ranked and recognized in class actions by Lexpert® Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory, Chambers Global, Best Lawyers, and The Legal 500.

Paliare Roland’s expertise and problem-solving on class actions is consistently recognized in the industry. One commenter quoted in Chambers Global (2022), stated:

“I have uniformly found their lawyers to be intelligent, practical, driven, honest and great fun to work with.”

Linda Rothstein has been noted as “a highly respected and regarded litigator – fearless and smart” [Chambers Global, 2022].

Odette Soriano has been “noted for her ‘spectacular problem-solving instincts’” [The Legal 500] and having done “a first-rate job on an extremely complex matter” [Chambers Global, 2022].

Paliare Roland recently acted for a class which obtained summary judgment against BMO Nesbitt Burns, BMO InvestorLine and BMO Trust Company for breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty and obtained an order for an accounting of profits. The case was a recipient of the Benchmark Litigation Canada 2021 Impact Case Award. While appeals were pending, the case settled for a total payment of $100 million. MacDonald v. BMO Trust Company, 2020 ONSC 93 (summary judgment on common issues); 2021 ONSC 3726 (settlement approval).

Paliare Roland’s class action group has successfully litigated and resolved cases involving such matters as:

  • Breach of trust
  • Breach of contract
  • Consumer protection
  • Competition/anti-trust claims
  • Investor claims
  • Franchisor-franchisee claims
  • Product liability, including medical devices, drugs, and automotive claims
  • Pension fund allocations
  • Professional negligence
  • Institutional abuse

Paliare Roland’s class action group is currently acting on the following plaintiff-side proceedings:

  • representing the class of over 200,000 registered account holders against BMO Trust, BMO Nesbitt Burns and BMO InvestorLine for breach of trust
  • representing Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees against Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
  • representing PayPal users against PayPal Inc. for breach of user agreements
  • representing holders of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Access Passports against Nova Scotia government in respect of indigenous rights
  • co-counsel representing the proposed class of Métis and Non-Status Indians who were affected by the Sixties Scoop

Please contact us for information on our defence-side class action practice.

Representative Work

  • Macdonald v. BMO Trust – The parties entered into a settlement agreement under which the defendants agreed to pay $100,000,000 to settle this class action, with the administration to be conducted and funded by the defendants.

    On June 17, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the parties’ settlement of this class action. A copy of the Court’s decision can be accessed here.

  • Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. – The firm acted for a class in a claim alleging that Shoppers Drug Mart has breached certain terms of the Associate Agreement, as well as its statutory and common law duty of good faith and fair dealing regarding the operation of the franchise system. In respect of all Associates, excluding Quebec, the claim seeks damages for excessive charges by Shoppers Drug Mart in respect of cost recovery fees and equipment rentals and leasing, as well as commercially unreasonable procurement and inventory policies.

  • Bozsik v. Livingston, 2019 ONSC 5340 — Chris Paliare and Paul Davis were appointed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to act as amicus curiae on motion to approve a proposed settlement and class counsel fees. The Court commented:

     

    [12] Before closing, I should specifically note the assistance I was given by amicus in this process. As I noted in my endorsement appointing Mr. Paliare, a judge entertaining a motion to approve a settlement, and the fees of class counsel, is at a distinct disadvantage. Both parties will urge that the settlement be approved. The defendant has no interest in challenging the reasonableness of the fees of class counsel. It is important, in my view, that some process be available to the court in order to assist in exercising due diligence. As discussed by the Court of Appeal in Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Co., 2011 ONCA 233, 106 O.R. (3d) 37, one method of doing so is through the appointment of amicus.

     

    [13] In this case, Mr. Paliare and Mr. Davis thoroughly analyzed the material and were able to provide considerable assurance to me that the settlement and the fees of class counsel were reasonable. One relatively minor error was uncovered, which resulted in a slight increase in the amount to be allocated to the class members. The error was promptly acknowledged by counsel for the plaintiff, and was corrected.

     

    [15] I am very grateful for the assistance that Mr. Paliare and Mr. Davis provided to the court.

  • Varley v. Canada (AG)

  • Sino-Forest – Ken Rosenberg, Max Starnino, and Lindsay Scott were retained as insolvency counsel by lawyers representing a class of investors alleging negligence against the auditor of Sino-Forest. The claims against the auditor settled in a court-supervised insolvency proceeding under the CCAA.

  • Toronto Community Housing Corporation v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2012 ONSC 6626  2012 ONSC 225 (Div. Ct.) certification appeal – Linda Rothstein and Odette Soriano represented a class of elevator owners who alleged that their elevators had faulty braking systems. The action settled.

FAQs

  • A class action, also known as a class proceeding, is a lawsuit in which one party, or a group of parties, may sue or be sued as representatives of a larger class.

     

    Before a class action may proceed, the court must be satisfied that the case meets certain criteria. The court determines whether the case satisfies the criteria in a hearing called a motion for certification.

     

    In Ontario, once an action is certified as a class proceeding, a notice is published, which informs members of the class about the class proceeding.

     

    Everyone who fits the definition of a class member is automatically included in the class action, unless they choose to exclude themselves by “opting out.” After the action is certified, the class will be provided with a period of time to decide whether they wish to participate or opt out. Class members who do not opt out of the class, are deemed to be part of the class, and do not need to take any steps.

  • Most often, class proceedings are commenced with a plaintiff who has a claim in common with other persons. A representative plaintiff is the person named as the plaintiff in a class action to litigate the case on behalf of the class.

     

    Sometimes class proceedings are commenced against a class of defendants. In such cases a representative defendant is named as the party defending the case on behalf of the class.

  • You do not have to do anything to be included in a class.

     

    The court order certifying the class proceeding sets out the definition of the class. If you fall within the definition of the class you are automatically a member of the class unless you opt out within the specified time period.

     

    If the class action is resolved (after a trial, or as a result of a settlement), class members may be required to provide certain information to a claims administrator in order to receive their portion of the judgment or settlement fund.

     

    If you believe you a class member in one of the actions where Paliare Roland is class counsel, and you have any questions about the case, please contact Paliare Roland at the address below.

     

    We endeavour to keep class members advised as the action proceeds by updating our website of major events in the litigation, and by way of email to any class members who have provided that information to us.

  • If you fall within a class definition but do not want to be a member of the class, then you have the right to opt out of that class action for a limited period of time after the proceeding is certified.

     

    The certification order will set out what you need to do to opt out, and a time within which you may do so.

     

    If you opt out, you will not be entitled to share in the proceeds of any judgment or settlement of the case, and you will not be bound by any court order in the action.

  • No, under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 section 31(2) class members, other than a representative plaintiff/representative defendant, are not liable for costs except with respect to the determination of their own individual claims.

  • Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP

    155 Wellington St. West 35th floor

    Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

    Attention: Odette Soriano

     

    If you have any questions that are not answered on the website, please do not hesitate to contact us.

     

     

  • The representative plaintiff in a class action usually enters into a contingency fee agreement with class counsel.

     

    The contingency fee agreement states that class counsel’s legal fees will be paid out of the proceeds of the action, if the case is settled or if there is a judgment in favour of the class. Usually, class counsel’s fee will be a percentage of the amount recovered for the class.

     

    Under contingent fee agreements, if the class is not successful, class counsel will not receive any compensation for their work.

     

    Class counsel’s fees have to be approved by the court before they are paid.

See all practice areas

Our Expertise

See all practice areas

Class Actions Lawsuits

Excalibur Special Opportunities LP v. Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP (re: Southern China Livestock Inc.)

  • 2020 ONSC 2793 (settlement approval); 2016 ONCA 916 (certification, appeal) —Linda Rothstein, Odette Soriano, Jeff Larry, and Paul Davis represented a class of investors in a private placement in Southern China Livestock Inc. The class alleged that the company’s auditor was negligent in opining on the company’s financial statements. The action settled.

Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation

  • 2017 ONSC 2670 – Paliare Roland acted as co-class counsel to a group of participants in a charitable gift program who alleged fraud and misrepresentations against the designers of the program. The case settled.

Sino-Forest

  • Ken Rosenberg, Max Starnino, and Lindsay Scott were retained as insolvency counsel by lawyers representing a class of investors alleging negligence against the auditor of Sino-Forest. The claims against the auditor settled in a court-supervised insolvency proceeding under the CCAA.

Mandeville v. Manulife

  • 2014 ONCA 417 – Linda Rothstein and Richard Stephenson at Paliare Roland acted as co-trial counsel for a class of insurance policy holders who alleged negligence against a large insurance company. Paliare Roland litigated the case through one of the few contested common issues trials in Canadian class action history.

Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway (Canada) Co.

  • Ken Rosenberg and Max Starnino were retained as insolvency counsel by lawyers representing individuals affected by the Lac Megantic derailment. The case has settled against some but not all of the defendants.

Poseidon

  • Max Starnino was retained as insolvency counsel for a class of investors in Poseidon Concepts pursuing primary and secondary market misrepresentation claims. The action settled.

    • June 8, 2017

      Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court Denied

    • December 6, 2016

      Appeal granted and class action certified

  • If you wish to provide documents to us, email, fax, deliver or mail your documentation to:

    Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
    Southern China Class Action
    155 Wellington St. W., 35th Floor
    Toronto, ON, M5V 3H1

    E southernchinalivestock@paliareroland.com
    T 416-646-4300
    F 416-646-4301

Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator (Canada) Ltd.

  • 2012 ONSC 6626 (settlement approval); 2012 ONSC 225 (Div. Ct.) (certification, appeal) —Linda Rothstein and Odette Soriano represented a class of elevator owners who alleged that their elevators had faulty braking systems. The action settled.

Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank

  • 2012 ONSC 5891 (settlement approval); 2007 ONCA 334 (certification, appeal)—Linda Rothstein and Odette Soriano acted as co-counsel to a class of credit card customers who alleged that they had been charged unlawful fees on cash advances. The action settled.

Payday lenders

  • Paliare Roland acted as co-counsel to classes of customers of payday lenders in cases alleging that the lenders charged criminal rates of interest. These cases settled.

Currie v. McDonald's Restaurants

  • Paliare Roland represented Canadian customers of a fast food chain who alleged that the company had improperly diverted prizes from promotional games. The action settled.

ING Canada

  • Andrew Lokan and Odette Soriano represented the respondent class after ING Canada Inc. brought an application to determine the proper distribution of a surplus realized after the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

Vezina v. Loblaws

  • Linda Rothstein and Odette Soriano represented a class of individuals who may have been exposed to Hepatitis A by a Loblaws employee. The action settled.

Highway 407

  • Ken Rosenberg and Odette Soriano represented a class of Highway 407 customers alleging that they had been charged an unlawful late fee. The action settled.

Aboriginal Treaty Rights Access (ATRA) Passports: Joyce et al. v. Nova Scotia (AG) (Nova Scotia proceeding)

  • Paliare Roland has commenced a class action in Nova Scotia on behalf of a proposed class of individuals defined as “all persons who currently hold or held valid Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Access Passports (“ATRA Passports”) as of July 13, 2017.

    The claim alleges, in general, that the Province of Nova Scotia breached its duty to consult with the Mi’kmaq people of Nova Scotia when it decided to accept only federal Indian status cards associated with Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq First Nations for the purpose of harvesting renewable resources under provincial jurisdiction. As a result of the Province’s decision, the plaintiffs and all other proposed class members who do not hold a federally-issued status card associated with a Nova Scotia Indian Act Band are no longer able to hunt in accordance with their Aboriginal and treaty rights, without fear of being charged and prosecuted by the Province in the courts.

    The claim seeks a declaration that the Province has breached the constitutional rights of the proposed class, as well as damages. The claim also asks the court to order that the province revert to recognizing ATRA Passport holders for the purpose of hunting and harvesting, on the same basis as holders of federally-issued status cards.

    None of the allegations against the defendant has been proven in court. A hearing date has not yet been set.

  • If you have held or currently hold an ATRA Passport, or wish to provide documents to us, please contact class counsel at the addresses below:

    Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rosenberg LLP
    Attention: Aboriginal Treaty Rights Access (ATRA) Passports
    155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor
    Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

    Glynnis Hawe
    Glynnis.hawe@paliareroland.com
    416-646-6309

    Andrew Lokan
    Andrew.lokan@paliareroland.com
    416-646-4324

    Patterson Law
    1801 Hollis Street, Suite 2100
    Halifax NS B3J 3N4

    Robert Pineo
    RPineo@pattersonlaw.ca
    902-405-8000

    If you have questions about your ATRA Passport and/or the proposed class action, you may also wish to contact the Native Council of Nova Scotia at:

    www.ncns.ca
    129 Truro Heights Road,
    P.O. Box 1320,
    Truro, N.S.
    B2N 5N2

    Toll Free: 1-800-565-4372
    Direct: 902-895-1523
    Fax: 902-895-0024

     

Breach of Trust: MacDonald et al. v. BMO Trust Company et al. (Ontario proceeding; national class)

  • Update

    In 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which the defendants agreed to pay $100,000,000 to settle this class action, with the administration to be conducted and funded by the defendants.

    On June 17, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the parties’ settlement of this class action. A copy of the Court’s decision can be accessed here.

    The process of distributing money to eligible class members is in progress.

    What is the lawsuit about?

    The lawsuit is against BMO Trust Company, BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., and BMO InvestorLine Inc. (collectively, the “defendants”). Commenced in 2006, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit claims that the defendants charged an undisclosed fee on foreign exchange conversions in the class members’ registered accounts. The Court appointed James MacDonald together with John Zoppas, Lynn Zoppas, and Michael Halasz to act as representative plaintiffs on behalf of the class members, and the Court appointed Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP to act as lawyers for the class (“class counsel”) to act in the best interests of the class as a whole.

    Who are class members?

    Class members are

    1. residents in Canada who:

    a) held registered accounts (e.g., RRSPs, TFSAs, RRIFs, LIRAs) at BMO InvestorLine Inc. (between June 14, 2001 and September 6, 2011) or BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. (between October 1, 2002 and September 6, 2011) or

    b) are the 14 clients of BMO Nesbitt Burns who opted out of the class proceeding entitled Skopit, and

    2. purchased or sold investments denominated in a foreign currency, or received dividends or interest denominated in a foreign currency in their registered account.

    There are approximately 135,000 class members with approximately 160,000 registered accounts.

    What is the status of this case?

    In February 2020, the Court found the defendants liable to the class for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract (“Breaches”) and required the defendants to return the profits on the amounts charged to the class.

    The Court ordered a further court proceeding called a reference to determine the reasonable and necessary expenses to be deducted from the foreign exchange revenue to determine the final profit amount of the final judgment.

    Both sides appealed the Court’s decision. Before the reference hearing and before the appeals, the parties reached a proposed settlement. The defendants did not admit any Breaches, and both sides consented to the dismissal of their appeals once the settlement has been finally approved.

    On June 17, 2021, the Court approved the parties’ settlement.

    The settlement monies will be distributed to eligible class members who continue to hold accounts with the defendants by the fall of 2021 and to eligible class members who no longer have accounts by the first part of 2022.

    What are the terms of the proposed settlement?

    Under the settlement, the defendants will pay $100,000,000 into a settlement fund. In exchange, the claims against the defendants are dismissed, the appeals are dismissed, and the defendants received releases on behalf of all approximately 135,000 class members.

    How will the settlement fund be distributed?

    The Court approved the following payments out of the settlement fund:

    Pro rata payments to those class members whose payment under the settlement calculation exceed $25 after deduction of the below amounts (“Compensation Fund”);
    The contingency fees of class counsel of $20 million and reimbursement for disbursements plus applicable taxes;
    The statutory levy of 10% to Ontario’s Class Proceedings Fund; and
    Honoraria totalling $70,000 to the representative plaintiffs.
    If an amount cannot be paid to a class member, it will be paid to a non-profit recipient approved by the Court.

    What happens next, and will I get money from the settlement?

    Each class member whose payment under the settlement calculation exceeds $25 will be receiving a pro rata payment from the Compensation Fund (subject to any required tax withholding). The final calculations are being done by an accounting firm as part of claims administration, using the class member account information maintained by the defendants.

    The settlement distribution will proceed as follows over the coming months:

    • Class members who will receive a payment of at least $25 from the Compensation Fund will be identified and receive a further notification
    • By fall 2021, the defendants will credit the pro rata amount to the class member’s registered account at BMO Nesbitt Burns or InvestorLine, if the account still exist
    • By the first half of 2022, those class members who no longer have their registered account with the defendants will receive a cheque by mail
    • At the end of the distribution process, the defendants will report to the Court on the settlement distribution.

     

    The parties estimate that most payments will be made within one year of the settlement being approved. However, it may take longer for the defendants to make reasonable efforts to locate class members who no longer have accounts with the defendants and have moved.

    If any payments to class members are subject to withholding tax, the defendants will withhold and remit the appropriate amount and you will receive a tax slip.

    It is class members’ responsibility to obtain tax advice about their own circumstances.

    I think I am a class member. Do I need to take any steps at this time?

    No. The defendants are directly distributing funds to eligible class members. You do not need to do anything to receive money if you are eligible.

    Where can I find more information about the case or the settlement?

    A copy of the settlement agreement, the Court’s decision to approve the settlement, and other documents are available under the Documents tab below.

    If your question is not addressed on the website, you may contact class counsel:

    Paliare Roland
    Website: rrspclassaction.com
    E-mail: rrspclassaction@paliareroland.com
    Telephone (Toll Free): 1-888-569-4526
    Mail: Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
    Attn: Bank of Montreal RRSP Class Action
    155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor
    Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

    Mise à jour

    Plus tôt cette année, les parties ont conclu une entente de règlement qui prévoit que les défenderesses verseront 100 000 000 $ dans un fonds de règlement afin de régler ce recours collectif, et que l’administration du fonds sera effectué et financée par les défenderesses..

    Le 17 juin 2021, la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario a approuvé le règlement de ce recours collectif. Les motifs de la cour sont disponibles en ligne.

    Le processus de distribution de fonds aux membres du groupe se déroulera au cours des prochains mois. Veuillez consulter ce site web pour d’autres mises à jour.

    Quel est l’objet de cette poursuite?

    Une poursuite a été intentée en 2006 contre la Société de fiducie BMO, BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. et BMO Ligne d’action Inc. (collectivement, les « défenderesses »). Les demandeurs prétendent que les défenderesses avaient facturé des frais non divulgués à l’égard d’opérations de conversion de devises dans les comptes enregistrés des membres du groupe. Le tribunal a désigné James MacDonald, John Zoppas, Lynn Zoppas et Michael Halasz comme représentants des membres du groupe et Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP comme avocats des membres du groupe en vue d’agir dans les intérêts de l’ensemble du groupe.

    Qui sont les membres du groupe?

    Les membres du groupe:

    1. Sont des résidents du Canada qui:

    a) soit détenaient un compte enregistré (p. ex. un REER, un CELI, un FERR ou un CRI) auprès de BMO Ligne d’action Inc. (entre le 14 juin 2001 et le 6 septembre 2011) ou de BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. (entre le 1er octobre 2002 et le 6 septembre 2011),

    b) soit sont les 14 clients de BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. qui ont demandé à être exclus du recours collectif Skopit;

    2. Ont acheté ou vendu des placements libellés en devises ou touché des dividendes ou des intérêts libellés en devises dans leur compte enregistré.

    Le groupe compte environ 135 000 personnes qui détenaient environ 160 000 comptes enregistrés.

    Où en est l’instruction de cette poursuite?

    En février 2020, le tribunal a jugé les défenderesses responsables d’abus de confiance, de manquement aux obligations fiduciaires et de manquement aux obligations contractuelles envers le groupe (les « manquements ») et leur a ordonné de restituer les profits réalisés sur les sommes facturées au groupe.

    Le tribunal a également ordonné un renvoi afin de déterminer les frais raisonnables et nécessaires devant être déduits du revenu de change pour obtenir le montant définitif des profits faisant l’objet du jugement définitif.

    Les deux parties ont fait appel de la décision du tribunal. Avant l’audience de renvoi et avant les appels, les parties sont parvenues à un règlement proposé. Les défenderesses n’admettent aucun des manquements; toutefois, pourvu que le tribunal approuve le règlement, elles consentent au rejet de leur appel.

    Le 17 juin 2021, la Cour a approuvé le règlement du recours collectif.

    Le fonds de règlement sera distribué aux membres du recours collectif admissibles qui continuent de détenir des comptes auprès les défenderesses d’ici l’automne 2021, et aux membres du recours collectif admissibles qui n’ont plus de comptes d’ici la première partie de 2022.

    Quelles sont les modalités du règlement proposé?

    Le règlement prévoit que les défenderesses verseront 100 000 000 $ dans un fonds de règlement. En contrepartie, les demandes à l’encontre des défenderesses sont rejetées, les appels sont rejetés et les défenderesses ont reçu une quittance de la part des quelques 135,000 membres du groupe.

    Comment le fonds de règlement sera-t-il réparti?

    Le tribunal a approuvé les paiements suivants du fonds de règlement:

    • les paiements au prorata destinés aux membres du groupe dont le paiement aux termes du calcul du règlement est d’au moins 25 $ après déduction des sommes ci-dessous (le « fonds d’indemnisation »);
    • les honoraires conditionnels des avocats du groupe totalisant 20 000 000 $, ainsi que le remboursement de leurs débours, plus les taxes applicables;
    • la redevance obligatoire de 10 % versée au Fonds d’aide aux recours collectifs de l’Ontario;
    • les honoraires des représentants des demandeurs totalisant 70 000 $.
    Si une somme ne peut être versée à un membre du groupe, elle sera versée à un organisme sans but lucratif approuvé par le tribunal.

    Que va-t-il se passer maintenant? Est-ce-que je recevrais un paiement du fonds d’indemnisation?

    Chaque membre du groupe dont le paiement aux termes du calcul du règlement est d’au moins 25 $ recevra un paiement au prorata du fonds d’indemnisation (sous réserve des retenues fiscales obligatoires). Les calculs définitifs seront effectués par un cabinet d’experts-comptables dans le cadre de l’administration des demandes, à partir des données sur les comptes des membres du groupe détenues par les défenderesses.

    La distribution du fond de règlement se déroulera comme suit au cours des prochains mois:

    • chaque membre du groupe qui doit recevoir un paiement d’au moins 25 $ du fonds d’indemnisation sera identifié et recevra un avis;
    • d’ici l’automne 2021 les défenderesses porteront le montant du paiement au prorata au crédit du compte enregistré du membre du groupe auprès de BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. ou de BMO Ligne d’action Inc., si ce compte existe encore;
    • d’ici la première partie de 2022, les personnes qui n’ont plus leur compte enregistré auprès des défenderesses recevront un chèque par la poste;
    •les défenderesses feront rapport au tribunal sur la répartition du fonds de règlement à la fin du processus de distribution.

    Nous estimons que la plupart des paiements seront effectués dans l’année suivant l’approbation du règlement. Cependant, les défenderesses peuvent mettre plus de temps à faire des efforts raisonnables pour localiser les membres du groupe qui n’ont plus de comptes avec les défenderesses et qui ont déménagé.

    Si certains paiements destinés aux membres du groupe sont imposables, les défenderesses retiendront et remettront au fisc les sommes appropriées, et vous recevrez un feuillet d’impôt.

    Il appartient aux membres du groupe d’obtenir un avis fiscal sur leur propre situation.

    Je crois être membre du groupe. Ai-je quelque chose à faire?

    Non. Les défenderesses distribuent directement les fonds aux membres admissibles du groupe. Vous n’avez rien à faire pour recevoir des fonds si vous êtes admissible.

    Où puis-je trouver davantage de renseignements au sujet de la poursuite ou du règlement?

    Vous trouverez une copie de l’entente de règlement, la décision de la cour d’approuver l’entente de règlement, et des autres documents pertinents sur le site Web des avocats du groupe, sous l’onglet « Documents » ci-dessous.

    Si vous ne trouvez pas la réponse à votre question sur le site web, vous pouvez contacter les avocats du groupe:

    Paliare Roland
    Site Web: rrspclassaction.com
    Courriel: rrspclassaction@paliareroland.com
    Téléphone (sans frais): 1-888-569-4526
    Adresse: Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
    Attn: Bank of Montreal RRSP Class Action
    155 rue Wellington Ouest, 35e étag
    Toronto, (Ontario) M5V 3H1

    • June 17, 2021

      Settlement approval decision

    • May 12, 2021

      Settlement approval hearing

    • February 28, 2020

      Decision in favour of the Class

    • January 1, 2020

      Hearing of motion for summary judgment

    • January 31, 2012

      Action certified by the Honourable Justice Horkins

    • December 12, 2011

      Motion of Certification heard (through to December 14)

    • August 2, 2006

      Statement of Claim filed

  • If you wish to provide documents to us, email, fax, deliver or mail your documentation to us at:

    Paliare Roland Rosenberg
    Rosenberg LLP Attention: Bank of Montreal RRSP Class Action
    155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor
    Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

    Phone: 1-888-569-4526
    E-mail: rrspclassaction@paliareroland.com
    Fax: 1-416-646-4301

     

Foreign currency conversion: Kaplan v. PayPal CA Limited at al. (Ontario proceeding); Balabanian v PayPal CA Limited at al. (Quebec proceeding)

  • NOTICE OF COURT ORDER
    For Settlement Approval and Counsel Fee Approval

    Paypal Currency Conversion Class Action Settlement

    KAPLAN V. PAYPAL CA LIMITED ET AL. CLASS ACTION

    PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

    What is this notice about?

    Leonid Kaplan (the Plaintiff) brought a proposed class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against PayPal CA Limited (and related companies). The case challenges PayPal’s currency conversion practices and disclosure on behalf of PayPal users in Canada outside of Quebec. This action is known as Kaplan v. PayPal CA Limited et al., Ontario Superior Court File No. CV-17-587236-CP. There is a companion claim on behalf of Quebec residents that makes similar claims (together, the “Claims”).

    What does the plaintiff claim?

    The Plaintiff’s allegations relate to the Defendants’ online currency conversion practices. The Plaintiff alleges that PayPal charged users more for currency conversions than it was entitled to under PayPal’s user agreements between January 2017 and August 2018. The Plaintiff also alleges that PayPal performed currency conversions in relation to purchases and withdrawals from PayPal accounts when it was not authorized to do so.

    What is PayPal’s response to the claim?

    PayPal denies any liability and denies the truth of the Plaintiff’s allegations.

    What is happening in the case now?

    The Plaintiff and PayPal agreed to settle the Claims. PayPal has agreed to pay a total of $10 million. On February 26, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement. The Court decided that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. The Court also approved payment to the Plaintiff’s lawyers of 25% of the settlement payment as their legal fees for the case.

    Who is in the class?

    The Court has authorized the class for settlement purposes. The class is defined to include:

    All persons resident in Canada other than residents of the Province of Quebec, who:

    (1) purchased goods or services using the payments system of PayPal CA Limited, PayPal Canada Co., PayPal Inc. and/or PayPal Holdings Inc. (collectively “PayPal”) in a currency other than the currency in which the goods or services were offered for sale, and who made such a purchase on or before August 8, 2018; or

    (2) held an account with PayPal in Canada and who withdrew funds from their account that were converted to Canadian dollars before being transferred to the person’s linked bank account or credit card on or before August 8, 2018.

    What are the terms of the settlement?

    PayPal has paid $10 million into a settlement fund for this case and the companion case in Quebec.

    Ten percent of the portion of the settlement fund that relates to the Ontario lawsuit will be paid to the Class Proceedings Fund. The other amounts to be deducted from the settlement fund are the legal fees and disbursements for the Plaintiffs’ lawyers and the costs associated with administering the settlement. After those deductions, the amount remaining will be distributed to some of the class members. Not all class members will receive a payment from the settlement. The issue in the Claims affected a large number of people (millions) for a relatively small amount of money per person.

    The settlement fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members who meet the criteria of the “Active Group”. The Active Group will be include class members who meet the following five criteria:

    (1) who are Canadian residents who purchased goods or services between January 14, 2017 and August 8, 2018, using PayPal in a currency other than the currency in which the goods or services were offered for sale;

    (2) who are PayPal accountholders;

    (3) whose PayPal accounts were still open as of August 2020;

    (4) who completed at least one (1) transaction with their PayPal account between August 9, 2019 and January 1, 2021; AND

    (5) whose PayPal accounts are not restricted as of the date of payment.

    It is anticipated that the pro rata distribution of the settlement to the Active Group will be in the range of CAD $1.85 per person, which will be deposited directly into their PayPal account.

    Do I need to do anything to get a payment?

    No. Class members who meet the criteria set out above do not need to take any action to receive a payment. Payments will automatically be put into those class members’ PayPal accounts.

    When will I receive the payment?

    Class members who are eligible to receive a payment will likely receive the money within the next few months. The process will take some time because there are millions of class members.

    Where can I get more information about the settlement?

    Further information about the settlement, including a copy of the settlement agreement, is available at www.PayPalClassActionSettlement.ca .

    You can also send an email to the lawyers for the class at info@paypalclassaction.com.

  • Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
    Attention: PayPal Class Action
    155 Wellington Street West, 35th Floor
    Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

    e-mail: info@paypalclassaction.com
    Fax: 1-416-646-4301

Franchise dispute: Spina et al. v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. (Ontario proceeding, national class excluding Quebec)

  • Update

    The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard a summary trial of the common issues in December 2022. The decision is currently under reserve. An update will be provided once the decision is released.

    Overview
    Shoppers Drug Mart operates a large system of franchised pharmacy stores across Canada. Each of these stores is independently owned and operated by franchisees (called “Associates”). Associates are required to enter into standard form franchise agreements with Shoppers Drug Mart (the “Associate Agreement”). The claim is brought on behalf of Associates across Canada, excluding Quebec.

    The claim alleges that Shoppers Drug Mart has breached certain terms of the Associate Agreement, as well as its statutory and common law duty of good faith and fair dealing regarding the operation of the franchise system.

    In respect of all Associates, excluding Quebec, the claim seeks damages for excessive charges by Shoppers Drug Mart in respect of cost recovery fees and equipment rentals and leasing, as well as commercially unreasonable procurement and inventory policies.

    The action also seeks compensation for Ontario Associates for damages suffered by them as a result of Shoppers Drug Mart’s failure to remit professional allowances to them.

    For Associates governed by the 2002 Associates’ Agreement, the claim alleges that they have been inappropriately charged the Optimum Program Fee.

    The Defendant denies the allegations made in the claim. None of the allegations have been proven in court.

    Certification
    This action has been certified as a class proceeding. The class members are:

    • All current or former Shoppers Drug Mart Associates resident in Canada (save for Associates with franchised businesses located in Quebec) who entered into an Associate Agreement with Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and/or Shoppers Drug Mart (London) Limited dated between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2010 (the “2002 Agreement Class”), and
    • All current or former Shoppers Drug Mart Associates resident in Canada (save for Associates with franchised businesses located in Quebec) who entered into an Associate Agreement with Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and/or Shoppers Drug Mart (London) Limited dated between January 1, 2010 and July 9, 2013 (the “2010 Agreement Class”).

    The certification motion was argued in two parts. Copies of the court orders and the decisions can be accessed under the “Documents” tab.

    This website will be updated when significant events occur in this proceeding.

    This action is receiving financial support from the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund.

    The Fund pays for some of the disbursements incurred in the course of prosecuting this action, and it will pay any adverse court costs that might be ordered payable by the representative plaintiff.

    There will be a levy payable to the Fund that will reduce the amount of any settlement or judgment award to which the class may become entitled. The levy will be comprised of repayment of any disbursements paid by the Fund and 10% of the net award or settlement funds.

    • A class action, also known as a class proceeding, is a lawsuit in which one party, or a group of parties, may sue or be sued as representatives of a larger class.

      Before a class action may proceed, the court must be satisfied that the case meets certain criteria. The court determines whether the case satisfies the criteria in a hearing called a motion for certification.

      In Ontario, once an action is certified as a class proceeding, a notice is published, which informs members of the class about the class proceeding.

      Everyone who fits the definition of a class member is automatically included in the class action, unless they choose to exclude themselves by “opting out.” After the action is certified, the class will be provided with a period of time to decide whether they wish to participate or opt out. Class members who do not opt out of the class are automatically part of the class.

       

       

    • On July 9, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified an action (Court File No. CV-10-414774-00CP) as a class proceeding against Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. In this action, the plaintiffs allege that Shoppers breached its Associate Agreements by charging excessive cost recovery fees and equipment rental fees as well as issues pertaining to leasing and commercially unreasonable procurement and inventory policies.

      The action also seeks compensation for Associates in Ontario (called the “Professional Allowance Class”) for losses claimed to have been suffered by them because Shoppers has not paid professional allowances that it allegedly received on behalf of the Professional Allowance Class.

      As part of the certification order, the Court appointed Giovanni Spina, John Spina Drugs Ltd., Romeo Vandenburg and Romeo Vandenburg Drugs Ltd. as the representative plaintiffs on behalf these two classes of Associates. A representative plaintiff is the person who prosecutes the case on behalf of the class, and provides instruction to the lawyers for the class.

      The Court is being asked to determine the plantiffs’ claims on summary judgment motions scheduled for December 2022.

    • You are a class member if you are a current or former Shoppers Drug Mart Associate who is or was resident in Canada (save for Quebec) and who entered into an Associate Agreement with Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and/or Shoppers Drug Mart (London) Limited dated between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2010 and/or between January 1, 2010 and July 9, 2013.

      You are also a class member if you are a current or former Shoppers Drug Mart Associate located in Ontario who performed direct patient care services at any time since October 1, 2006.

    • You do not have to do anything to be included in a class. The court order certifying the class proceeding sets out the definition of the class. If you fall within the definition of the class you are automatically a member of the class unless you opted out within the specified time period.

      If the class action is resolved (after a trial, or as a result of a settlement), class members may be required to provide certain information to a claims administrator in order to receive their portion of the judgment or settlement fund. We recommend that you keep in a safe place your past and present Associate Agreement, and all documentation that you have regarding the expenses you incurred as a Shoppers’ Associate, and the reports you provided to Shoppers regarding patient care services supporting the Professional Allowances claimed by Shoppers.

      We endeavour to keep class members advised as the action proceeds by updating our website whenever major events in the litigation occur. We will also answer direct inquiries sent to us by email or left on the toll-free telephone line’s confidential voicemail.

    • Class Members will not have to pay any legal fees directly in connection with the common issues phase of the Class Action.

      The Lawyers for the Class (“Class counsel”) have entered into a contingency fee agreement with the representative plaintiffs. Class counsel will not be paid for their work unless the Class Action is successful either by a judgment against Shoppers, or by completing a settlement with Shoppers that is approved by the court.

      Under the contingency fee agreement, Class counsel are to be paid a contingency fee of 33 1/3% of the amount recovered in the Class Action, but that amount remains subject to the approval of the court before it can be paid.

      Any court costs received from Shoppers will be used first to pay for the expenses of the action, and secondly towards the payment of Class counsel’s fees if the action is successful. Class counsel and the Class Proceedings Fund will pay for the expenses incurred in prosecuting the Class Action that are not covered by costs awards received from Shoppers.

      Before Class Counsel are paid any fees, the fees must be approved by the court.

      1. 1. Each class member will be bound by the judgment in the Class Action. Class members cannot advance an individual claim against the defendants that relates to the same subject matter.
      2. 2. If the plaintiffs reach a settlement with Shoppers or obtain a judgment from the court, the money will be shared amongst the members of the class in the manner the court directs.
      3. 3. If there are individual issues remaining after the resolution of the common issues, (for example to determine the total amount of each class member’s losses) it is possible that there may be some costs to you to present your case to a claims administrator or other adjudicator prove the value of your claim.
    • The main consequence of any judgment (favourable or unfavourable) is that each class member will be bound by the judgment and cannot advance an individual claim against the defendants on the same subject matter.

      An unfavourable judgment in the common issues trial will not have any financial consequences for any class member. The class is protected by funding from an organization called the “Class Proceedings Fund”. Normally, in a lawsuit, the unsuccessful party must pay a contribution towards the legal fees of the successful party. Because of funding from Class Proceedings Fund, class member will not pay anything in the event of an unsuccessful judgment in the common issues trial.

    • If you have any questions or wish to provide documents to us, contact us by way of email, fax, deliver or mail at:

      Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rosenberg LLP
      Attention: Shoppers Drug Mart Class Action
      155 Wellington Street West, Suite 3500
      Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

      E-mail: shoppersdrugmartclassaction@paliareroland.com
      Phone: 1-877-203-2866
      Fax: 1-416-646-4301

    • December 2022

      Motions for summary judgment to be heard by the court

    • March - May 2022

      Cross-examinations for summary judgment motions

    • February 2022

      Parties exchange reply summary judgment motion records

    • December 2021

      Parties exchange responding summary judgment motion records

    • July 2021

      Parties exchange summary judgment motion records

    • June 2020

      Discovery-related motions decided

    • May and July 2019

      Further examinations for discovery

    • October 2018

      Discovery-related motions decided

    • April - June 2017

      Examinations for discovery

    • February 2, 2014

      Opt out period

    • November 29, 2013

      Notice sent to Class Members

    • July 9, 2013

      Order dated

    • July 9, 2013

      Justice Perell's decision on the balance of the motion for certification was released

    • June 3, 2013

      Balance of the certification motion was heard this week

    • December 21, 2012

      Plaintiffs’ Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and Amended Motion Record for Certification served

    • October 3, 2012

      Order dated

    • October 3, 2012

      Justice Perell’s decision on the motion to strike and one aspect of the certification motion released

    • August 27, 2012

      Motion to strike and one aspect of the certification hearing heard this week

    • March 15, 2012

      Defendants Motion Record for motion to strike served

    • November 11, 2011

      Plaintiffs’ Reply Motion Record served

    • October 13, 2011

      Defendants’ Responding Record on Certification served

    • April 8, 2011

      Plaintiffs’ Motion Record for Certification served

    • December 20, 2010

      Statement of Claim filed and served

    • November 13, 2010

      Action commenced by way of Notice of Action

  • If you have any questions or wish to provide documents to us, contact us by way of email, fax, deliver or mail at:

    Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rosenberg LLP
    Attention: Shoppers Drug Mart Class Action
    155 Wellington Street West, Suite 3500
    Toronto, ON M5V 3H1

    E-mail: shoppersdrugmartclassaction@paliareroland.com
    Phone: 1-877-203-2866
    Fax: 1-416-646-4301

Indigenous "Sixties scoop" survivors without Indian Act status: Varley v. Canada (AG) (Federal Court proceeding, national class)

Kauf v. Colt Resources Inc.

  • 2021 ONSC 2814—Jeff Larry and Paul Davis represented the former CEO of a public company in defence of a class action brought by investors. The action settled.

River v. Waterloo Regional Police Association

  • 2019 ONCA 267 – Nini Jones, Jodi Martin, and Glynnis Hawe successfully represented the Waterloo Regional Police Association in defence of a proposed class action brought by current and former uniform women members. They successfully argued that the court had no jurisdiction over claims of unfair representation, which must be heard by specialized labour arbitrators.

Hodge V. Neinstein

  • 2019 ONSC 439 – Chris Paliare, Odette Soriano, and Paul Davis represented a law firm in defence of a class action by former clients. The action settled.