Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Simmons, MacFarland and Benotto, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2015 ONCA 53,(2015), 330 O.A.C. 142 (CA)
• Date: 28 January 2015
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE,COURTS

Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Can. Ltd. (2015), 330 O.A.C. 142 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.035

Lorne Waldman (plaintiff/appellant) v. Thomson Reuters Canada Limited (defendant/respondent)

(C58585; 2015 ONCA 53)

Indexed As: Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Simmons, MacFarland and Benotto, JJ.A.

January 28, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff and defendant settled a copyright infringement class action. They applied under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act for court approval of the settlement, as well as the retainer agreement and class counsel fees sought under the agreement. Seven class members opposed the settlement. A motions judge refused to approve the settlement, finding it unfair, unreasonable and not in the best interests of the class members. The plaintiff, supported by the defendant, appealed. At issue was whether the appeal was to the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act (final order) or to the Divisional Court with leave under s. 19(1)(b) (interlocutory order).

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the appeal was from an interlocutory order and had to be brought to the Divisional Court with leave. The court quashed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 7451

Provincial courts - Ontario - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - Appeals from interlocutory orders - The plaintiff and defendant settled a copyright infringement class action - They applied under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act for court approval of the settlement, as well as the retainer agreement and class counsel fees sought under the agreement - Seven class members opposed the settlement - A motions judge refused to approve the settlement, finding it unfair, unreasonable and not in the best interests of the class members - The plaintiff, supported by the defendant, appealed - At issue was whether the appeal was to the Court of Appeal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act (final order) or to the Divisional Court with leave under s. 19(1)(b) (interlocutory order) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a refusal to approve a settlement order was an interlocutory order, not a final order - The order did not end the class proceeding - It required it to continue - The parties lost no substantive rights - The court rejected the argument that even if the refusal to approve the settlement was an interlocutory decision (appeal to the Divisional Court with leave), his refusal to approve the fee agreements and amount of fees was a final order and the court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the entire order under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act - The fact that the order refusing approval of the settlement agreement was interlocutory was fatal to the court having jurisdiction to hear an appeal from any part of the order.

Courts - Topic 7506

Provincial courts - Ontario - Divisional Court - Jurisdiction - Appeals from interlocutory orders - [See Courts - Topic 7451 ].

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitute - [See Courts - Topic 7451 ].

Practice - Topic 5779

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory or interim orders - What constitutes - [See Courts - Topic 7451 ].

Cases Noticed:

Simmonds et al. v. Armtec Infrastructure Inc. et al. (2012), 299 O.A.C. 20; 2012 ONCA 774, refd to. [para. 5].

Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Lawrence et al. v. Atlas Cold Storage Holdings Inc. et al. (2009), 257 O.A.C. 39; 311 D.L.R.(4th) 323; 2009 ONCA 690, refd to. [para. 13].

Albert v. Spiegel (1993), 64 O.A.C. 239; 17 C.P.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Merling v. Southam Inc. et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Cole v. Hamilton (City) (2002), 60 O.R.(3d) 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Diversitel Communications Inc. v. Glacier Bay Inc. (2004), 181 O.A.C. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Wu Estate v. Zurich Life Insurance Co. et al. (2006), 211 O.A.C. 133; 268 D.L.R.(4th) 670 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Buck Bros. Ltd. v. Frontenac Builders Ltd. (1994), 73 O.A.C. 298; 19 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Fusarelli v. Dube, [2005] O.A.C. Uned. 461; 2005 CanLII 37251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Capital Gains Income Streams Corp. et al. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 210; 87 O.R.(3d) 443; 2007 ONCA 497, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 6(1)(b) [para. 6]; sect. 6(2) [para. 11]; sect. 6(3) [para. 17].

Counsel:

Paul J. Pape and Shantona Chaudhury, for the appellant;

Andrew E. Bernstein and Sarah Whitmore, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 18, 2014, before Simmons, MacFarland and Benotto, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On January 28, 2015, MacFarland, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court.