Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, (1997) 38 O.T.C. 98 (GD)

• Judge: Winkler, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: September 18, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 38 O.T.C. 98 (GD)

Dabbs v. Sun Life (1997), 38 O.T.C. 98 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.T.C. TBEd. OC.004

Paul Dabbs (plaintiff) v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (defendant)

(London File No. 22861)

Indexed As: Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Winkler, J.

September 23, 1997.

Summary:

Dabbs, as representative plaintiff, brought a class proceeding in Ontario on behalf of 400,000 policy holders who purchased vanishing premium policies from Sun Life. Related class proceedings were commenced in Quebec and British Columbia. Following ten months of negotiation, the parties reached a settlement. Dabbs moved for court approval of the settlement. A number of policy holders objected to the settlement. Several objectors moved to have Dabbs' counsel removed due to conflict of interest. They submitted that the counsel negotiated its fee arrangement payable by Sun Life concurrently with the settlement and, accordingly, had a pecuniary interest in the action that created a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the motion, finding that Dabbs' counsel was not in a conflict of interest position.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1609

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Resulting from lawyer's self-interest - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1617

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Situations not resulting in conflict - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Mendoza v. United States (1980), 623 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 16].

Prandini v. National Tea Co. (1977), 557 F.2d 1015 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 16].

Evans v. Jeff D. (1986), 475 U.S. 717 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, sect. 29 [para. 8]; sect. 32, sect. 33(1), sect. 33(4), sect. 33(7), sect. 33(8), sect. 33(9) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (3rd Ed. 1995), generally [para. 23]; p. 183 [para. 20].

Newberg, H., and Conte, A., Newberg on Class Actions (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 15-9 [para. 21]; 15-96 to 15-97 [para. 15].

Counsel:

W. Graham Dutton, Q.C. (Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler), for the plaintiff;

H. Lorne Morphy, Q.C., and Patricia Jackson, for the defendant;

Michael Deverett, for three objectors;

J. Douglas Barrett and Gary Will, for 11 objectors.

This motion was heard on September 18, 1997, before Winkler, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following judgment on September 23, 1997.