The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50842
LEGAL REPORT: CLASS ACTIONS than your law firm. I don't think we ever got into one of those and we don't want to. It's nasty and unsavoury for lawyers to be engaging in." — DAVID THOMPSON, SCARFONE HAWKINS LLP (formerly Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor. Former partner Won Kim has left to form Kim Orr, which will also specialize in class actions, with Jim Orr, formerly of Affleck Greene Orr) says has some veracity but ignores the intent of why class actions exist in the first place. "Es- sentially the intent was to allow access to justice," says Roy. "It's a way to modify behaviour, not a Don Quixote charge but for people who have been adversely affected by conduct that requires modi- fying. It's not a cash grab but we're not hopelessly altruistic either. There's sig- nificant risk in this type of litigation and you hope to win more than you lose." Merchant agrees: "It's about changing the law. I fought for women when I was in the legislature and I continued to do that with the breast implant class action. Sometimes it's easier to change things through the courts, because to change things politically, you have the change the government, and that's harder to do." For plaintiffs sometimes the pie Branch_CAIC_6.0 3/6/08 9:20 AM Page 1 must also be divided in order to meet the needs of the clients. To bring in the expertise in a specific area — medical malpractice, pharmaceutical — often means firms have to reach out to others to find the skills they need, says David CLASS ACTIONS IN CANADA Ward Branch Cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in the leading class action decision 205 D.L.R. (4th) 19, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158 Helping you gain the unique skill of successful class action advocacy, this important work provides examples and direction through analysis of hundreds of class action cases litigated across Canada, as well as a comprehensive bibliography of class action articles. This well-organized, easy-to-read text features: motions, jurisdiction, costs and funding action legislation and local rules from across the country Order your copy today! CL0408 (2001), Thompson of Scarfone Hawkins LLP in Hamilton, Ont., who recently col- laborated with Strosberg and Stanley M. Tick and Associates on an action against Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. The action alleged a doctor at the hos- pital performed improper medical pro- cedures on 189 women between 1990 and 2004. It was settled last fall with the defendants agreeing to pay $10 million — about $35,000 each claimant plus $2,000 for family members. Thompson says the collaborative trend is both welcome and less stressful. "Before you'd often have carriage issues during certification where you'd basi- cally go in front of the court and say, my law firm is better than your law firm," he says. "I don't think we ever got into one of those and we don't want to. It's nasty and unsavoury for lawyers to be engag- ing in." Working with other firms though has some challenges, especially when the parties have their own unique charac- ters and ways of approaching cases. "For example, [Strosberg] is direct and deter- mined but I think we all worked togeth- er well," says Thompson. "And working collaboratively means the defence team takes you much more seriously." Containing risk, though, is topmost www.canadalawbook.ca 48 APRIL 2008 www. C ANADIAN mag.com in mind for the plaintiffs bar these days in the continuing fallout from Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc., in which sharehold- er Rick Durst and others launched a class action on the grounds the retailer mis- led investors when it restated its finan- cial forecast in 1998 shortly after raising $69 million in an initial public offering. Last October, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the dismissal of the suit and ordered $1 million in costs against Durst. Given the penalty of costs — and the risk law firms take in launching class actions — there is a new incentive for "Before, you'd often have carriage issues during certification where you'd basically go in front of the court and say, my law firm is better Hollick v . T or onto (City) … and much mor e!