Lexpert Magazine

March 2019

Lexpert magazine features articles and columns on developments in legal practice management, deals and lawsuits of interest in Canada, the law and business issues of interest to legal professionals and businesses that purchase legal services.

Issue link: https://digital.carswellmedia.com/i/1097797

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 11 of 23

12 LEXPERT MAGAZINE | MARCH 2019 BIG SUITS RECENT LITIGATION OF IMPORTANCE AMMAZZINI ET AL V. ANGLO AMERICAN PLC ET AL, 2019 SKQB 60 DECISION DATE: MARCH 4, 2019 is recent decision from the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan arose in the context of overlapping multijurisdictio- nal Canadian class actions alleging compe- tition law violations in the production and sale of gem-grade diamonds. Unlike the United States, which has a multidistrict litigation panel process, Canada has no national legally binding process for coordi- nating cases started by multiple plaintiffs' counsel in multiple provinces. BACKGROUND is decision of the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench was issued on the defendants' appli- cation for the permanent stay or dismissal of a proposed class action in Saskatchewan. e Saskatchewan stay application was brought following a national settlement reached between the defendants and a consortium of plaintiffs' counsel who were working together to address competition law claims across Canada regarding gem- grade diamonds. Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Saskatchewan action, Merchant Law Group LLP (MLG), were not part of the national plaintiffs' consortium, and the Saskatchewan plaintiffs were not parties to the national settlement agreement. Following hearings before the courts of all of the provinces in which the plaintiffs' consortium had commenced actions — British Columbia, Ontario and Québec — the national settlement was approved as being fair, reasonable, and in the best in- terests of class members. e Ontario class consisted of all residents of Canada except for residents of British Columbia and Qué- bec. e national settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs' consortium was intended to bind all class members across Canada who did not opt out of the national settlement. It was a term of the national settlement that the Saskatchewan action be permanently stayed or dismissed. Saskatchewan class members would be cov- ered by the national settlement as members of the Ontario class. THE SASKATCHEWAN ACTION Daniel Ammazzini and Olson Goldsmiths Inc. were the representative plaintiffs in a proposed multijurisdictional action com- menced under the Class Actions Act. ey contended that the defendants, Anglo American PLC et al, wrongfully restricted the global supply of gem-grade diamonds so as to artificially increase their price. e Saskatchewan plaintiffs sought to certify a claim on behalf of Canadians resident in all provinces, except British Columbia, who had paid what they allege were inflat- ed prices for diamonds. e Saskatchewan proposed class ac- tion mirrored the class actions commenced by the plaintiffs' consortium in Ontario, British Columbia and Québec. All of those consortium cases were settled on a national basis. e Ammazzini case, com- menced by MLG in Saskatchewan, sought certification of a national class and alleged violations of Canadian competition law in the production and sale of gem-grade dia- monds; thus, Ammazzini overlapped en- tirely with the Ontario action, which was settled as part of the national settlement. It was a term of the national settlement that the Ammazzini action in Saskatch- ewan be permanently stayed or dismissed. From the defendants' perspective, as long as the Saskatchewan action remained "live," the release in the national settlement would not be effective and their exposure would not be resolved. e route to address that was an order permanently staying or dismissing the Ammazzini action. Prior to the national settlement agree- ment being reached, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench had issued a con- ditional interim stay of Ammazzini pend- ing the determination of the certification motion in the Ontario action; that interim stay decision was upheld by the Saskatche- wan Court of Appeal in 2016. e national class action in Ontario was certified for set- tlement purposes as part of the settlement approval process. Once courts across Canada approved the national settlement, the final step was for the defendants to seek the permanent stay or dismissal of Ammazzini. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH DECISION In reviewing and considering the factors relevant to settlement approval, Justice G. M. Currie of the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan found the national settlement met the test for approval, while noting that he was not required to approve the settlement. Justice Currie recognized that the defendants wanted to resolve their exposure to litigation in Canada, that the plaintiffs' consortium and the defendants engaged in years of hard-fought litigation in the context of the consortium actions, and that the settlement provided benefits to class members across Canada, including Saskatchewan residents. Justice Currie held that the Saskatch- ewan action was duplicative of the Ontario action and served no useful purpose, and concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and should be stayed per- manently. Notably, the Court of Queen's Bench made an order for costs in favour of the defendants. On March 15, 2019, the Saskatch- ewan plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal with the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench issues a permanent stay of a duplicative class action where a national settlement was reached in other cases; Québec court awards $4.1 million to a restaurateur against the developer of an aborted mall and hotel project; the Supreme Court finds the terms of Hydro-Québec's 65-year contract in Labrador to be valid LITIGATION SNAPSHOT

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Lexpert Magazine - March 2019