Ingarra v. Dye & Durham Limited

Ingarra v. Dye & Durham Limited

The funding motion was dismissed because the LFA, as drafted, was not fair and reasonable to the class members, produced disproportionately high returns to the funder and related parties (exceeding established benchmarks such as the Ontario CP Fund and the presumptive 30–35% combined share), and was champertous; therefore approval would not be in the interests of justice.

Citation
2024 FC 152
Parties
Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative): John Paul Ingarra; Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative): Kyle David Pinnell; Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative): Paul Anthony Tantalo; Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative): 5046013 Ontario Inc.; Defendant: Dye & Durham Limited; Defendant: OMERS Infrastructure Management Inc.; Defendant: DoProcess LP
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Proposed Class Proceeding (competition/price Fixing Allegation) / Funding Approval Motion Under Rule 369 (motion Dismissed)
Outcome
Funding motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Third‑party Litigation Funding, Champerty, Access to Justice, Fee Allocation, Funding Agreement Approval
Source Language
English
Competition Law Class Actions Civil Procedure Litigation Funding Third‑party Litigation Funding Champerty Access to Justice Fee Allocation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Paul Ingarra

Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative)

Kyle David Pinnell

Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative)

Paul Anthony Tantalo

Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative)

5046013 Ontario Inc.

Plaintiff (proposed Class Representative)

Dye & Durham Limited

Defendant

OMERS Infrastructure Management Inc.

Defendant

DoProcess LP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Proposed Class Proceeding (competition/price Fixing Allegation) / Funding Approval Motion Under Rule 369 (motion Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third‑party litigation funding is necessary to secure access to justice in the proposed class proceeding
  2. 2 Whether the Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) is fair and reasonable to current and prospective class members
  3. 3 Whether the LFA is champertous

Ratio Decidendi

The funding motion was dismissed because the LFA, as drafted, was not fair and reasonable to the class members, produced disproportionately high returns to the funder and related parties (exceeding established benchmarks such as the Ontario CP Fund and the presumptive 30–35% combined share), and was champertous; therefore approval would not be in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Funding motion dismissed

Orders

  • Motion dismissed without prejudice to the Plaintiffs coming back with a new litigation funding agreement for the Court's approval
  • Costs awarded to the Defendants