Archives: Class Action Developments

A second settlement has been reached in the Class Actions. The Settlement Agreement was reached with the defendants Mitsui O.S.K., Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Shipping (U.S.A.), Inc., Nissan Motor Carrier Co. Ltd., and World Logistics Service (USA) Inc. (collectively, “MOL”). MOL has agreed to pay CAD $7,000,000 for the benefit of Settlement Class Members and to provide co-operation to the Plaintiffs in pursuing their claims against the remaining non-settling defendants (the “MOL Settlement Agreement”). The Settlement requires court approval and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault by MOL. The litigation will continue against the non-settling defendants.

If you wish to opt-out of this class action, you must do so by July 25, 2016.

This case has been nationally certified as a class action.

The plaintiffs have reached a national settlement agreement with the defendant Desjardins (the “Desjardins Settlement”). Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Desjardins will pay CAD $9,900,000 (the “Settlement Amount”) for the benefit of the Settlement Class Members. The Desjardins Settlement is, subject to approval of the courts in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario (the “Courts”).

The plaintiffs have reached additional settlements with the Citigroup and Capital One defendants. On August 20, 2015, the BC Court certified the BC Action against Citigroup and Capital One for settlement purposes only. The action was previously certified against Bank of America for settlement purposes only.

The settlements must be approved by the courts in order to become effective.

The settlement approval hearings will be held:

• in Vancouver on November 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (British Columbia Supreme Court)
• in Edmonton on November 10, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench)
• in Regina on November 12, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench)
• in Toronto on November 19, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
• in Montreal on November 23, 2015 at 2:15 p.m. (Quebec Superior Court)

A copy of the Notice to class members regarding certification, settlement approval and how to opt-out of the class action can be found under important documents.

Court of Appeal Reasons

On August 19, 2015 the BC Court of Appeal issued reasons for judgment in relation to the appeals of the certification against all parties. A copy can be found under important documents. The Court of Appeal upheld most of the BC Supreme Court’s decision to certify the BC Action as a class proceeding against all defendants, except Desjardins. Certification against Desjardins will be reconsidered by the BC Supreme Court.

On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff commenced an action against the Defendant alleging breach of contract and breach of trust for their failure to pay his Deferred Payments.  On June 17, 2016, the claim was amended to be brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 (“CPA”).  On August 9, 2016, the action was transferred to the Vancouver Registry.

A settlement was reached in February 2020.

On March 27, 2014, Chief Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued reasons for judgment certifying the proceedings commenced in British Columbia as a class proceeding. This means that the BC Action is now officially a “class action” and is brought on behalf of all members of the “Class”.

The Class includes all British Columbia merchants who accepted payments by way of Visa or Mastercard credit cards beginning March 28, 2005 continuing through to the present. All merchants in British Columbia who fit this definition are automatically included as class members and will be bound by the outcome of this litigation, unless they choose to exclude themselves (opt out) within a specified period of time in the future. More information on opting out of the class will be posted on this website at a later date.

Although it is not necessary to “register” to participate in this class action, if you would like to receive direct notification of any future developments and notices approved by the Court, please contact Sharon Wong of CFM Lawyers at [email protected].

On March 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of British Columbia concluded that, with respect to some of the pled causes of action, the plaintiff has satisfied each of the requirements of s.4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.  This action shall be certified as a class proceedings.  The public Reasons for Judgment were released on March 27, 2014.

The defendants appealed the decision certifying the class action and were successful at the BC Court of Appeal, however, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the judgment of Mr. Justice Myers, finding that the proceeding met the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act. The unanimous Reasons for Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 31, 2013, can be found under Documents

Securities Commission Proceedings

There are ongoing proceedings before the B.C. Securities Commission. We are not directly involved in those proceedings, but you can find out more by visiting the Securities Commission’s website, here. Samji Investor Questionnaire: https://classcounsel.wufoo.com/forms/samji-investor-questionnaire/

Receivership Proceedings

On April 3, 2012, a Receiver was appointed by the Court over some of Arvin Patel’s property and certain bank accounts belonging to Samji & Assoc. Holdings Inc. This appointment took place outside the Jer v. Samji action. The B.C. Securities Commission applied for the appointment of MNP Ltd. as Receiver, with the consent of Ms. Samji and Mr. Patel. It is our understanding that the Receiver’s mandate is to determine how best to use those assets to provide one source of recovery to investors.

The Receiver will continue to provide investor updates and will be involved in future proceedings.  We are not directly involved in these proceedings but we continue to monitor the Receiver’s process.

The Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on March 28, 2011. Go to Documents to view a copy of the order.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has granted the motion for leave to appeal the judgement of the Divisional Court dismissing the appeal from Justice Lax’s refusal to certify the action.

It is anticipated that the appeal will be heard in late 2011.

Class action proceedings were certified or authorized by the courts of British Columbia, Ontario and Québec alleging that beginning in 1988, Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive conduct resulting in overcharges for the following Intel-compatible personal computer (“PC”) operating systems and Intel-compatible PC applications software: Word, Excel, Office, Works Suite, Home Essentials, MS-DOS, and Windows (“Microsoft Software”). See BCSC Reasons for Judgment under Documents.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released it’s decision with respect to certification on June 18, 2009.

The Court was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of systemic wrongdoing and was further of the opinion that the claims of the class members were not sufficiently common to permit the case to proceed as a class action. In particular, the court rejected the argument that the issue of the legality of the CIBC overtime policy was common to all class members and the resolution of the issue would substantially advance the litigation. The court found that the remaining criteria for certification had been met.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal brought by several of the defendants and ruled that s. 11 of the Opioid Damages and Healthcare Costs Recovery Act is constitutional.

A copy of the Reasons may be found under Documents.