McLean v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1077
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Court | Federal Court (Canada) |
| Citation | 2019 FC 1077 |
| Date | 19 August 2019 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
15 practice notes
-
Fair Compensation or Unjustified Temptation to Compromise?: an Empirical Review of Requests for Honorarium Awards in Canadian Class Actions
...See, for example, Currie v McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd, [2007] OJ No 3622 at para 35, 160 ACWS (3d) 409 (SCJ); McLean v Canada, 2019 FC 1077 at para 57 [McLean]. 45 See Chartrand v Google LLC, 2021 BCSC 7 at para 66 [Chartrand 2021]. 46 Windisman v Toronto College Park Ltd, [1996] ......
-
Moushoom v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1533
...has the discretion to award honoraria to Representative Plaintiffs [see Lin v Airbnb Inc, 2021 FC 1260 at paras 118-119; McLean v Canada, 2019 FC 1077 at para 57-60; Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 588 at paras 90-95; Condon v Canada, 2018 FC 522 at paras [79] Honoraria are not ......
-
Jack v. McLean, 2020 FCA 180
...Schools (2019 FC 1076; see also Reasons for approval of the settlement, 2019 FC 1075 and for approval of fees payable to class counsel, 2019 FC 1077). The appellants were proposed class counsel in a previous proposed class action before the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in respect ......
-
Lin v. Airbnb, Inc.,
...the class counsel fees are fair and reasonable (Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 590 [Wenham 2] at para 33; McLean v Canada, 2019 FC 1077 [McLean 2] at para 25; McCrea v Canada, 2019 FC 122 at para 98; Condon at para 82; Manuge at para 28). Again, these factors are similar to the......
Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
-
Jack v. McLean, 2020 FCA 180
...Schools (2019 FC 1076; see also Reasons for approval of the settlement, 2019 FC 1075 and for approval of fees payable to class counsel, 2019 FC 1077). The appellants were proposed class counsel in a previous proposed class action before the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench in respect ......
-
Lin v. Airbnb, Inc.,
...the class counsel fees are fair and reasonable (Wenham v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 590 [Wenham 2] at para 33; McLean v Canada, 2019 FC 1077 [McLean 2] at para 25; McCrea v Canada, 2019 FC 122 at para 98; Condon at para 82; Manuge at para 28). Again, these factors are similar to the......
-
Tiller v. Canada, 2020 FC 323
...The Court notes that there has been no evidence of opposition to the Fee Agreement. III. Analysis [11] As outlined in McLean v Canada, 2019 FC 1077, in respect of fees, notwithstanding any agreement between Class Counsel and the Defendant, it is the Court’s duty to determine what is “fair a......
-
Jack v. McLean, 2021 FCA 65
...the Federal Court but was more properly a subject for the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba (Reasons for Fee Approval Order (2019 FC 1077) at para. 14): Neither Jack nor Alghoul took steps to preserve a solicitor’s lien or claim against Gowling. If they have any such rights, ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Fair Compensation or Unjustified Temptation to Compromise?: an Empirical Review of Requests for Honorarium Awards in Canadian Class Actions
...See, for example, Currie v McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd, [2007] OJ No 3622 at para 35, 160 ACWS (3d) 409 (SCJ); McLean v Canada, 2019 FC 1077 at para 57 [McLean]. 45 See Chartrand v Google LLC, 2021 BCSC 7 at para 66 [Chartrand 2021]. 46 Windisman v Toronto College Park Ltd, [1996] ......