A federal court will award a class action lawyer involved in a landmark multibillion-dollar Native American child welfare settlement $40 million, half of what was originally sought for his work. It was decided that it could be done.
The five law firms originally sought $80 million from the federal government, plus applicable taxes and about $600,000 in copayments.
Ottawa argued that the initial demands were excessive, negotiated a lower price, and settled with the law firm for $55 million.
Judge Mandy Iren said the amount was still too high.
“Because class actions are not lottery tickets, and the purpose of this court’s class action system is not to enrich attorneys, this court must avoid approving attorney fees that result in windfall profits,” he said Friday. she said in a written judgment released.
In exchange, Mr. Eilen approved $40 million in legal fees, plus spending on lawyers and taxes paid from public funds.
Cindy Blackstock, who brought the human rights lawsuit in 2007 with the Assembly of First Nations that resulted in the settlement, said she hopes the decision sends a message to other class action lawyers.
“We are pleased to have received a significant reduction from the $80 million requested,” said Blackstock, executive director of the Indigenous Children and Family Care Association.
“We are very concerned that such exorbitant legal costs could create a disparity between those who have been harmed and who receive far less per capita.”
Mr. Eilen approved $40 million plus up to $5 million for ongoing work to implement the settlement agreement.
The five firms receiving fees are Sotos LLP, Kugler Kandestin LLP, Miller Titerle + Co., Nahwegahbow Corbiere and Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP.
The judge took issue with the lack of billing details.
The bill would build on more than $23 billion in federal funds previously approved by the federal court to compensate Indigenous children and their families, as well as Ottawa’s allocation for long-term reforms for Indigenous children. It will not come from the additional $20 billion. and family services.
Under a settlement agreement reached between lawyers and Ottawa, more than 300,000 First Nations people will be left behind due to the federal government’s chronic and intentional underfunding of child and family services on the Reserve and Yukon. They will each receive tens of thousands of dollars.
The agreement follows a 2016 finding that Canada fails to provide the same level of child and family services provided in other countries and intentionally and recklessly discriminates against Indigenous children and families. Based on the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
In 2019, a court ordered Canada to pay human rights fines of up to $40,000 for each Indigenous child and their family.
The court said the government’s actions created incentives for foster care that excluded Indigenous children from their communities, cultures and families.
The practice, dubbed the “Millennium Scoop,” resulted in more Indigenous children ending up in foster care than those sent to residential schools at its peak. It meant that.
Three class action lawsuits have been filed against Canada, two of which have been combined into one.
In her decision, Ms. Iren held that the class action did not break new ground and relied on the proceedings and decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal.
Ms. Eilen also objected to the failure to provide details requested by her attorney to justify the claim. She also scolded Ottawa for not pursuing the issue.
“I have concerns about the number of recording hours and hourly rates,” she wrote.
The five law firms logged approximately 24,000 billable hours, with billed rates ranging from $180 to $975 per hour.
“Class action lawsuits take advantage of the fact that they know that they don’t have clients who will scrutinize their records in the same way as traditional paying clients, so class action lawsuits are a waste of their time without regard to productivity. It should not be an open-ended invitation to record.”
“The use of inflated hourly rates that have the effect of artificially increasing actual rates is yet another mischief that this court is wary of and is unacceptable.”
