Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

• Author: Administrator
• Date: November 04, 2015

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Irving Paper Ltd. v Atofina Chemicals, 2015 ONSC 6662

[1] This is an alleged price fixing case that was certified five years ago. The plaintiffs move for an order amending the class definition to shorten the class period to between November 1, 1998 to December 31, 2003 and to exclude persons who purchased products containing hydrogen peroxide or products using hydrogen peroxide (primarily indirect purchasers).

(…)

[27] I am satisfied that the class definition should be amended as the plaintiff requests for several reasons. First, I agree that the trilogy conclusively established that the passing on defence is not available. Therefore, the rationale (or a part of it) for including indirect purchasers is eliminated. Second, the emphasis in Sun-Rype on the requirement for self-identification caused counsel to re-evaluate their case, notwithstanding the supportive opinion of their expert. Clearly, there was some doubt about how to interpret the self-identification element when one remembers that the action was certified at first instance. An appeal was allowed on other grounds. I note as well, the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court.

(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Niam v Silverberg, 2015 ABQB 682

[1] The Applicant (…) challenges the enforceability of a contingency fee agreement she entered into with her solicitor in defending a forfeiture application made by the Crown. For the reasons that follow, I find the contingency agreement valid and enforceable.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Puri Consulting Limited v. Kim Orr Barristers PC, 2015 ONCA 727

[1] At issue in this appeal is the interpretation of an accepted offer to settle. In particular, did the offer to accept “$50,000 plus HST in full and complete satisfaction of the [appellant’s] claim” include the appellant’s claim for costs? Or did silence in the offer, on the matter of costs, mean that r. 49.07(5)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied?

[2] The motion judge found that the offer was unambiguous. She held that the words “full and complete satisfaction” meant that the offer was inclusive of costs, and that although the respondent waited several months before accepting the offer on the eve of trial, r. 49.07(5)(b) did not apply.

[3] For the reasons that...