Law Times

Law TiMes • May 5, 2014 Page 3 www.lawtimesnews.com Counsel's recommendation rejected as judge weighs in on cy-près debate n an unusual decision ac- knowledging the burgeoning debate over cy-près awards, a Superior Court judge has rejected the recommendation of class counsel about who should receive the residual funds from a class action launched by investors in the Bre-X Minerals Ltd. case. Instead, Justice Paul Perell accepted a recommendation by a single class member on who should receive settlement funds that couldn't be distributed among investors wronged in the Bre-X saga. In Carom v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd., Perell decided to distribute 80 per cent of settlement resi- dues to the Law Foundation of Ontario's access to justice fund and ordered the remaining amount to go to a university one of the class members has links to. Class counsel believed the school was a viable recipient but suggested the law foundation should receive the full $3.5 million with it then allowing other chari- ties to compete for the funds as well. But Perell said the University of Ottawa's Telfer School of Man- agement should receive some por- tion of the amount without com- petition. One of the class mem- bers, James Roache, is a member of the faculty at the school, accord- ing to the ruling. (e University of Ottawa's web site shows Roache is an alumnus and a donor who has a business and finance ethics award named aer him.) "Whether a particular cy- près award satisfies the purposes of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, can be a matter of debate, because there may be many worthy candidates that could arguably be connected to the collective or common interests of the class members and the goals of the particular class ac- tion, but class counsel should, at least, consider the views of class members," wrote Perell. "In the case at bar, class counsel was satisfied that the Telfer School was an appropriate candidate for a cy-près award." Perell acknowledged it was ex- traordinary for the court to reject class counsel's recommendations. "I wish to make it clear, because the case at bar may have impli- cations for other cases about the administration of a settlement agreement, the court will nor- mally not second guess the de- cision of class counsel between worthy and appropriate recipi- ents of a cy-près award," he wrote. "e problem in the imme- diate case, however, is that class counsel's recommendation was, in effect, a recommendation that the LFO, which in and of itself is a worthy candidate, should de- cide who are the other worthy candidates." But to University of Windsor NEWS Monday June 2, 2014 Shaarei Shomayim Synagogue • 470 Glencairn Ave.,Toronto Registration & Breakfast: 7:30 am • Program: 8:00 am – 12:00 noon • Cost $100 To register, please contact Anita Bromberg at: 416-633-6224 x130 • abromberg@bnaibrith.ca …is program can be applied towards the annual continuing professional development hours required by the Law Society of Upper Canada Jordan Atin Atin Professional Corporation Blair Henry Ethicist, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Ian Hull Hull & Hull LLP Gary Hodder Hodder Barristers Harry Underwood Polley Faith LLP Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner Rosh Kollel, YU Kollel, Toronto Debra Stephens Goddard Gamage Stephens LLP Marshall Swadron Swadron Associates Judith Wahl Advocacy Centre for the Elderly Kimberly A. Whaley Whaley Estate Litigation Albert H. Oosterhoff Western University Faculty of Law Craig Vander Zee, Torkin Manes LLP Charles B. Wagner Wagner Sidlofsky LLP Chair, Trust & Estates Group CLE for Lawyers & Accountants Rasouli - Doctors' Powers & Patients' Rights PRESENTERS Sponsored by: B'nai Brith Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, Hull & Hull LLP, Wagner Sidlofsky LLP, Whaley Estate Litigation, and The Jewish Tribune WagnerSidlofsky LLP WagnerSidlofsky_LT_May5_14.indd 1 14-04-29 1:19 PM law Prof. Jasminka Kalajdzic, class counsel generally have the best interests of the whole class at heart and their recommendations should trump one made by a single class member. Giving the money to an organization a class member like Roache has links to "is not obvi- ously representative of the collective interest whereas class counsel is specifically charged with representing and protecting the best inter- est of the class," says Kalajdzic. "Why arbitrarily give 20 per cent to a re- cipient proposed by one class member out of a class of thousands?" she asks. Kalajdzic recently published a study that found the courts oen approve cy-près awards without proof of the difficulty of distribut- ing the funds among class members. She also found there's no guidance for the courts on how to distribute cy-près awards. "Judges accept, with little or any discus- sion, the submissions or evidence that iden- tifying class members is 'cost-prohibitive,'" the study says. Although she agrees it wasn't possible to distribute the funds in Carom among class members as the cost of distribution would have far exceeded the benefit to all investors, Kalajdzic says the decision to assign 80 per cent of the funds to the law foundation and 20 per cent to the school shows the arbitrary nature of the process. "What troubles me is the manner in which the judge decides who should receive the mon- ey," she says, adding that when it comes to these decisions, "the case law is all over the map." Class action lawyer Garth Myers agrees. "Where did the 80-20 come from?" asks My- ers, an associate at Koskie Minsky LLP. Cy- près awards are a developing area of jurispru- dence, he says, noting "the reality is there are a Wild West of rules." In his decision, Perell said that when it comes to cy-près awards, courts are not "in the business of being a grant approving institution." "Cy-près awards are somewhat controversial, and academics have debated whether and how such awards advance the purposes and public law policies of class actions. ere has been some academic criticism about the transparency and rationale for how courts approve the recipients of cy-près awards," he wrote. "e simple answer is that courts are not in the business of being a grant approving institution and the issue of a cy-près award arises in the context of an adversarial system in which the court is responsive to the submissions of the parties and treats a cy- près award as subject to the same approach and the same principles that apply to the rest of the proposed settlement or to the administration of an approved settlement." But by rejecting class counsel's recommen- dation in this case, approving grants is exactly what the court did, according to Myers. "It's a very interesting decision because at paragraph 136, Justice Perell says the ul- timate decision remains with class counsel and then he goes on to vary the recommen- dation of class counsel," he says. "It's sort of saying one thing and doing an- other," he adds. "I think in cases like this, class counsel's recommendation should go a long way be- cause they're obliged to act in the best inter- est of the class. So I agree with the principle but not its application." LT BY YAMRI TADDESE Law Times I

• Cover