The Plaintiff discontinued against our customer prior to the application had been argued.

The Plaintiff discontinued against our customer prior to the application had been argued.

The Plaintiff discontinued against our customer prior to the application had been argued.

Fong et al v. Calgary that is grenville-Germain Limited McLennan Ross acted for the directors of the business which constructed within an action commenced with respect to the people who own the domestic condominiums for misrepresentations and deficiencies.

Hudyma v. LoyaltyOne, Inc. et al McLennan Ross acted for the transportation that is international with regards to an action involving a big travel facilitator together with incorporation of gas surcharges into the calculation of expenses.

Kilroy v. a ok payday loans inc. et al it was A uk Columbia course action against a wide range of pay day loan operations, by which McLennan Ross represented three of this Defendants. The Plaintiff discontinued its action against our consumers. Korte v. Cormie McLennan Ross ended up being counsel towards the auditors in this course of action, a “representative proceeding” before the utilization of course procedures legislation in Alberta, that was brought with respect to all the investors in 2 subsidiaries associated with Principal Group, a economic conglomerate that failed. The situation had been settled ahead of exams for breakthrough.

Lahaie v. Goodyear this is a course action against Goodyear. McLennan Ross assisted as Alberta counsel in commencing the class action in Alberta at the request of British Columbia counsel, that has currently commenced an action in British Columbia The situation ended up being settled in British Columbia.

MacKinnon v. National cash Mart et al This course action was brought in British Columbia contrary to the major operators into the pay day loan industry. McLennan Ross had been counsel to at least one regarding the Defendants. We had been effective in opposing a software for certification, following that the Plaintiff discontinued this step as against our customers.

Nette v. Stiles et al In this proposed course action, the Plaintiff advertised from the Alberta national while the College of Chiropractors that one treatment had been harmful and may never be allowed into the Province of Alberta. McLennan Ross represented a Defendant and brought a software to have the claim dismissed just before certification. The Plaintiff discontinued against our customer prior to the application had been argued.

O’Keefe v. Menu Foods working Limited Partnership McLennan Ross ended up being involved with a course action brought by owners alleging any particular one for the major distributors of pet foods in Alberta didn’t have quality controls in position which triggered the loss of home animals from tainted food. This litigation had been remedied by settlement between the events.

Pauli et al v. Ace INA Insurance et al McLennan Ross acted as Alberta counsel for starters regarding the Defendants in this step which desired an interpretation regarding the Insurance Act and a return of any deductible charged where there clearly was a total loss in car at issue. The action had been solved in preference of the Defendants after a synopsis dedication of the true point of law. Ramias v. Johnson McLennan Ross had been counsel to your Plaintiffs in this class that is putative which reported investment fraudulence and securities violations. It absolutely was discontinued after settlement because of the Defendants.

Tschritter v. Instaloans Financial Systems Centres McLennan Ross had been counsel to your Defendants in this class action brought against a loan that is payday into the Province of Alberta, that has been solved within the overall settlement for the Ontario and Alberta course procedures against our customers (see Bruley and Downey above).

Western Canada Buying Centres v. Dutton McLennan Ross acted for just one associated with defendants in this longstanding course action for many years.

Bank of America et al Class actions have already been filed against Visa, MasterCard, and an amount of banking institutions in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario, claiming losings with respect to Canadian merchants who accepted re re payment for items or solutions by means of Visa or MasterCard bank cards associated with service charges and limitations on company techniques which were needed to be able to accept payments that are such. McLennan Ross will act as Alberta representative for counsel for just one regarding the Defendant banking institutions. The issues are susceptible to case that is coordinated as they are ongoing.

No Comments

Post A Comment