The Federal Court dismissed NIFI’s motion for an extension of time and an interlocutory injunction, finding the termination was contractual, not reviewable, and awarding solicitor-client costs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal; it held the motion judge did not err in law or principle and properly exercised his discretion in approving $25 million in class counsel fees (approximately 17% contingency, a lodestar multiplier near 1.5) and in denying a $30,000 honorarium to the representative plaintiff. The judge reasonably weighed risks, results, proportionality and the integrity of the profession and permissibly used multipliers/comparators as checks rather than determinative metrics.
Written r.7.08 settlement approval motions are presumptively subject to the open court principle; parens patriae does not create a freestanding presumption in favour of sealing; appellants failed the first prong of the Sherman test because they did not show that public access to the records posed a 'serious risk' to an 'important public interest' (privacy, protection of parties under disability, or solicitor-client privilege) on the facts; lesser measures (anonymization, redaction, publication bans or targeted temporary sealing) are adequate and sealing was unnecessary; therefore motion judge…
Source excerpt
Open court principle
Sealing/confidentiality orders
Rule 7.08 (settlement approval for minors/parties under disability)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an employment appeal and upheld just cause for dismissal based on a long pattern of surreptitious recordings that destroyed trust.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion to disqualify counsel, finding no demonstrated conflict of interest or confidential information and awarding costs against the moving parties.
The court dismissed a pre-trial application for a declaration and for examination of a former solicitor, finding the request was not fit for interlocutory declaratory relief.
The court admitted counsel’s affidavit and waived solicitor-client privilege over Mrs. Seifred’s 2017 file in a committeeship dispute, finding disclosure in her best interests and necessary to assess capacity and undue influence.
Master Vos held the lawyer’s fees were reasonable, allowed reduced disbursements, and upheld 8% simple interest under the retainer, but denied interest on written-off fees.
Registrar Cameron cancelled a matrimonial contingency fee agreement, finding it was not fair or reasonable when entered into and ordering bill review as if no CFA existed.