Facts
In Doucet v. The Royal Winnipeg Ballet, 2023 ONSC 2323 (Order dated 20th April 2023), the class action was brought by the Appellant X, a student at the Respondent Y’s ballet school, where Bruce Monk was employed as an instructor and a photographer. Monk photographed various students at the school in private settings between 1984-2016. The alleged involved a) intimate photographs taken by Mr. Monk, sexual assault of the students he photographed b) breach of fiduciary duty by abusing position of power and trust by Mr. Monk c) dissemination and selling the intimate photographs without students’ consent. Additionally, Y, was asserted to be vicariously liable for the alleged misconduct.
Judgement by Class Judge
Prior to the trial, the parties had settled wherein Y agreed to pay a settlement fund of $10 million with an apology. Based on the claims received from various students, each eligible student would receive almost $88,000.
The judge of class proceedings approved the settlement with the proposed contingency fee and costs of class counsel.
However, the approval to seek additional payments from the fund to the two representative plaintiffs and three class member witnesses was declined by the judge citing precedents and law on honorariums in Ontario. The judge noted such honorariums should be awarded rarely and only if an exceptional contribution is made which results in success for the class.
The amounts that were declined amounted to a total of $70,000 as the following was requested –
- $30,000: X
- $10,000: Co – Plaintiff
- $10,000: 3 member witnesses
Thus, an appeal was sought against the decision.
Appeal Courts Decision
The judge citing several cases pointed out that fulfilling a role of class representative does not lead to extra compensation. However, an additional payment should be made only where the representative plaintiff can demonstrate a level of involvement which is “truly extraordinary”.
Following the principle set out in jurisprudence that provides a modest payment to representative plaintiffs, the judge overruled the decision of the Class proceedings judge but rejected the claim for her co-plaintiff and other three class witnesses.
The judge, while granting $7,500 to X, noted that her co-plaintiff fulfilled their role admirably; however, “participation did not extend well beyond the steps that needed to be taken.”
The judge noted the nature of the case being sexual abuse was a factor that favoured a payment in favour of X. The judge ruled that X had to relieve her trauma during cross examination for the benefit of the class and protected the rest of the class members to relieve the trauma.
About The Legal Swan: We are an organization that aims to provide 360-degree solutions against bullying, harassment & discrimination and promote diversity, equity, inclusion & belonging. For any queries, consultation or services, get in touch with us connect@thelegalswan.com or +91 90040 99796.
Authored by Isha Khorana, Legal Intern