Savonitto is involved in many class action files, some of which have had an important impact on the lives of a large number of victims or those who have suffered important damages. Our team is a major player in all the steps of a class action, whether it be the strategy prior to the institution of legal proceedings, the authorization process or the legal actions that will lead to a final resolution of the problem.
Our prominent expertise as plaintiffs’ counsels in class actions has been recognized to the extent that defendants sometimes resort to our tactical and strategic know-how in order to defend themselves against liability procedures.
We have acted in class actions in environmental law, consumer law, health care, sports, securities and insurance.
Guy Daniel v. Procureure générale du Québec
This file pertains to the unusual troubles and inconveniences experienced by residents of St-Jean-sur-Richelieu in connection with Autoroute 35.
Honhon v. Procureure générale du Canada et al.
This file pertains to the indemnification of people infected with the Hepatitis C virus between 1986 and 1990 in connection with the tainted blood scandal. For more information, please consult the Administrator’s web site for Claims related to Hepatitis C at www.hepc8690.ca.
Lukas Walter v. Ligue de Hockey Junior Majeur du Québec et al.
This file pertains to the application for authorization to institute a class action against the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League Inc. as well as the teams that are part of the League. The position advocated is that the « Standard Player Agreement » is an employment contract by which players accept to provide services to the teams. Should the authorization to institute a class action be granted, the Court will have to decide whether the hockey players are employees. If so, the eligible players could receive a minimum wage salary and, amongst others, payment for overtime.
S.C. 500-06-000716-148 and 500-06-000719-142
The applications for authorization to institute class actions strive to determine whether defendants had the right to charge Aeroplan members a “fuel surcharge”, “airport improvement fees” and “passenger charges” according to the terms and conditions adhered to by the customers.
S.C. 500-06-000724-142, 500-06-000725-149, 500-06-000744-157
The present class action aims to obtain a refund for the tariff increase as well as a reimbursement for the diminished discounts on the unlawfully imposed tariffs by Bell Canada and/or Bell Mobility and/or Bell ExpressVu and/or Bell Mobility inc. for the following services: phone, mobile, internet, Fibe TV and satellite TV. The present class action was authorized on July 10, 2017 by the Superior Court of the district of Montreal.