|
Access to Justice - Financial Incentives to Advance. Doucet v The Royal Winnipeg Ballet [for numbered case cites see the link]
In Doucet v The Royal Winnipeg Ballet (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers, and denigrates, the class action practice of awarding honourariums to representative plaintiffs. Much of the discussion bears on financial incentives to initiate public interest litigation, esp paras 79-91 regarding conflicts of interest:[3] This appeal relates to the practice of awarding what are called “honorariums” to representative plaintiffs in class proceedings. The class proceedings judge expressly departed from a practice of commonly approving these payments. He correctly observed that these payments have become routine despite the jurisprudence holding that they should be rare. The appellants also propose to depart from the prior jurisprudence, submitting that these payments should be routine.
[4] For the reasons set out below, the appeal is granted in part, with respect to the lead representative plaintiff Ms. Doucet, and denied with respect to the other four proposed recipients of these payments. The principles arising from the prior jurisprudence that these payments should be rare, not routine, and should be modest, foster the goals of class proceedings while addressing significant concerns about an apparent conflict of interest between recipients of these payments and other class members. These principles have long been established and should be followed.
....
[15] In my view, the overarching question is a matter of principle: should there ever be an honourarium awarded to a representative plaintiff or other class member/witness in a class action settlement? The class proceedings judge recognized the contrary law and said no. The related question is, if there is the possibility of such an award, what principles should apply? ... The court continues to analyse this issue extensively at paras 16-105.
|
