Ontario lawyer acting for five class members advised class counsel that distribution plan that had been approved by courts in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec contravened s. 1 and 3 of Human Rights Code. Ontario lawyer told class counsel that his clients intended to request damages and amendment to distribution plan. After negotiations class counsel and Ontario lawyer signed letter agreement in action and in companion actions in Quebec and British Columbia. Ontario lawyer was satisfied that problems with code could be resolved by giving claims administrator instruction to be posted on claims website for duration of claims process. Motion was brought with respect to distribution phase of class proceeding. Motion dismissed on terms. Class counsel was directed to file notice of motion and supporting affidavit material for motion for directions and motion was scheduled. Proposed instruction may or may not be adequate to address what may or may not have been problem, raised by persons who may or may not have standing to challenge approved settlement distribution scheme. Court could not endorse whatever it was at whim of class counsel and Ontario lawyer without ruling on merits of underlying dispute. Court could not indirectly endorse anti-suit injunction prohibiting clients of Ontario lawyer from taking administrative proceedings that may or may not be available to them assuming that they were entitled to make claims notwithstanding releases that were part of court approved settlement.
Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG (Jun. 8, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., Perell J., File No. 05-CV-4340, 10-CV-15178CP) 254 A.C.W.S. (3d) 779.