Blackstock sees ‘imbalance’ between $55M lawyers’ bill, welfare victims’ compensation

November 26, 2023

The Canadian Press
November 14, 2023

Cindy Blackstock holds a press conference regarding First Nations child welfare in Ottawa on Thursday, Sept. 15, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Cindy Blackstock, one of the people responsible for bringing forward a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case that led to a historic settlement agreement, says she is concerned about an “imbalance” between what lawyers and victims will be paid.

The Federal Court approved a landmark $23-billion class-action lawsuit settlement last month to compensate more than 300,000 First Nations children and their families for chronic underfunding of on-reserve child-welfare services.

The federal government and class-action lawyers from five legal firms have since reached an additional $55-million deal over legal fees, which they promised to negotiate as part of the settlement agreement but which has not yet been approved in Federal Court.

“I don’t understand the system where the person who will have to have the most courage — those who are victimized — to bring forward the complaint (will) receive only a minutiae of what the lawyers receive who argued the complaint,” Blackstock, a lawyer with the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society, said in an interview on Tuesday.

The settlement came after a years-long battle with the federal government, which included a 2016 tribunal decision that the underfunding was discriminatory, and a 2019 ruling awarding $40,000 in compensation for each affected person.

The initial complaint revolved around allegations that Ottawa’s underfunding of on-reserve child-welfare services amounted to discrimination, and that First Nations children were denied equal access to support, including school supplies and medical equipment.

The tribunal found in 2016 that First Nations were adversely affected by the services provided by the government and, in some cases, people were denied services as a result of the government’s involvement. It acknowledged the suffering of those “denied an equitable opportunity to remain together or to be reunited in a timely manner.”

Indigenous Services Canada said last week it considers the $55-million proposed agreement to cover class-action lawyers’ fees to be reasonable. The department said that amount is in line with legal fees paid for previous class-action lawsuits.

Still, Blackstock said she is concerned about an “imbalance” in compensation being paid to lawyers, when victims are to receive comparatively little.

In documents submitted to the Federal Court dated Nov. 6, class-action lawyers said previous materials filed to the court estimated the total value of work up until the settlement approval hearing would be approximately $17.5 million.

That figure remained accurate by the time parties were making arguments about a final amount, the document reads, with the value of the work estimated at just under $17.6 million by the end of October.

Blackstock pointed to that figure, saying: “So why should there be a premium of this order?”

In an affidavit prepared for the Federal Court dated Oct. 6 and submitted a month later alongside other documents, David Sterns, a partner at Sotos LLP who worked on the case, said language included in fee retainer agreements would have resulted in much higher legal fees.

If those agreements were followed to the letter, then the costs would have been as high as $2.3 billion, he said.

Instead, the lawyers sought a lower $80-million figure.

Ottawa still found that price too steep, and a full day of judicial mediation to resolve that impasse was unsuccessful. The details of the mediation are confidential.

But the class-action lawyers noted in the documents submitted to court on Nov. 6 that “it was the view of all plaintiff counsel that the (final settlement agreement) is a historic achievement and that focus should be placed on the settlement rather than a dispute over legal fees.”

The $55-million figure was ultimately “fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class,” they concluded.

Blackstock said the costs of the original 2007 human-rights complaint were largely paid for by her organization, with lawyers often doing the work pro bono.

“But then you have this class action that started just four years ago — after we had the main decision made — and they’re going to get $55 million in legal fees,” Blackstock said.

Court documents show that Canada agreed to pay $5 million to Blackstock’s Caring Society to assist with the “implementation and administration” of the settlement over an approximately 20-year period on a non-profit basis.

Blackstock said the fee was reached separately because her organization was not part of the class-action lawsuit, even though its original complaint was the basis for it.

She said the $5 million will go toward helping children and adults who are entitled to compensation in the final agreement but had been left out of previous proposed settlements. The money will only be used to make representations on behalf of such victims, she said.

Blackstock said Canada should not wait for tribunal decisions and class-action settlements to right wrongs against First Nations children.

“It’s much more in the public interest to actually end injustice, and not create victims, than it is in trying to seek some form of compensation for victims,” said Blackstock.

– Alessia Passafiume, The Canadian Press

David Sterns
SotosLLP.com “Leading Franchise and Business Law Boutique
SotosClassActions.com “Standing up for what’s yours”


Franchising and the Tyranny of Evil Men

April 2, 2018

Some money costs too much. It may not nececessarily be up to us to decide what source nurtures or what source poisons.

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee..
Ezekiel 25:17


Canadian franchise bankers have learned a great deal about opportunism (self-interest with deceit) from their franchise bar friends.

November 30, 2017

Canadian franchise bankers

Franchising Opportunism

Paper to Industry Canada

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Modern franchising creates opportunism by separating ownership from control.

2. Economic theory indicates fraud is likely to occur with credence goods or services. Franchise industry system owners, lenders, consultants and lawyers provide credence services.

3. Franchisors sell franchises not only to the public but to their industry peers. A sophisticated fraud model has been developed. Franchisors licence their franchisees’ opportunism to financial institutions and consultants.

4. Fraud requires a tolerant environment.

5. Malfeasance is minimized with a free flow of information regarding material investment risks. The Canadian franchise industry is characterized by high levels of information flow on the all levels with the dramatic exception of the small business investor.

6. The most accurate, independent reputation data is held by those with the greatest barriers of communication.

7. There is sufficient internal and external evidence to warrant halting franchised loan claims and to notify the appropriate federal and provincial agencies for evaluation.

8. Further research is warranted.


Study A Civil Action, 1998: Don’t be a patsy franchisee leader in a Big Tort action.

November 20, 2017

It stopped being about justice the moment the writ was dropped.

The truth is in the bottom of a bottomless pit.

“I don’t have to call anyone, do you?”


It’s important for Canada’s two elite class action franchise lawfirms to give the appearance of a fair fight.

November 15, 2017

Behind the scenes, the amount the franchisor will be paying out to the lawyers has already been agreed to.

Why risk paying out +$1B when $25 million to each law firm (> 0.5%) will trip up the lawsuits?

It’ll never get to trial anyway.


Which shareholder enables the franchisee class-action game?

June 29, 2017

The informal franchisee leaders. The organizers. The “white knights”.

When the class-action fraud sausage explodes, You can’t really blame the lawyers for pandering to your lack of wholeness, wisdom, and confidence.

Can you?


Who profits when a $500-million Canadian class-action franchise lawsuit happens?

June 21, 2017

The least likely are individual franchisees.

That may or may not happen especially when 98% of all lawsuits never make it to trial and withstand an appeal.

The negotiations are held between the 2 lawyers. Franchisees are decision takers.

Parties:

  • Franchisor (defendent) – the only payer, repeat player, credence good monopolists, (happier to pay 2 law firms a lot rather than a little to hundreds of franchisees)
  • Franchisor’s Specialized Law firm – only one in Canada, repeat player, expert credence good provider, member of franchisor association
  • Franchisees (plaintiff) – one time player, only non-credence good player, unskilled but unaware
  • Franchisee’s Specialized Law firmonly one in Canada, repeat player, expert credence good provider, member of franchisor association

Both CDN law firms (one for the franchisor, one for the franchisee) at this level are businesspeople, first and foremost.

The two law firms act as rent seeking coercive monopolists.


Vigorous provincial government relations are invaluable in influencing Tim Hortons Brazilian-based vulture capitalists.

June 8, 2017

Franchisees need to speak out to their local MPPs (member of provincial parliament).

Image result for kezios mike stewart

Queen’s Park, Toronto, Canada

The independent franchisee association should make a legislative “wishlist” a priority.

Nothing, nothing makes a franchisor and his allies (Canadian Franchise Association, CFA et al) stand up and take notice.

Anyone who says talking to politicians is a waste of time, is working full-time for 3G, the CFA, its 1,199 other franchisors and their supporters: banks, legal service providers.

Start by suggesting the Ontario government reverse the onus on good faith in the Arthur Wishart Act.

Image result for canadian alliance of franchise operators logo

Est. 1998

Image result for kezios mike stewart

Mike Colle, MPP Eglinton Lawrence, Susan Kezios, President, American Franchisee Assocation, AFA and Les Stewart, Canadian Alliance of Franchise Operators, CAFO, Wishart Act hearings, 2000.

Les’s expert witness testimony.

Image result for kezios mike stewart

John Sotos, Sotos LLP and Susan Kezios, AFA, Wishart Act hearings, 2000

John’s expert witness testimony. Susan’s expert witness testimony.

Tony Martin MPP Sault Ste. Marie and Dr. Gillian K. Hadfield, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 2000.

Dr. Hadfield’s expert witness testimony.

Three MPPs get together to try to make franchise fraud a criminal offence, Second Reading, 2010.

Image result for kezios mike stewart

Les Stewart, ON Premier Kathleen Wynne and Don Morgan, 2015.

Q: Why should any public official help your family when (it appears) you don’t give two hoots about the other +70,000 franchisee families?


Who has profited most handsomely from the passage of the Ontario Arthur Wishart (Frachise Disclosure) Act, 2000?

March 27, 2017

The mega group, elite class action and Tier 2 franchise bar practioneers.

Notwithstanding a very receptive Superior Court, almost no mom-and-pop franchisees.

That’s precisely why no attorney pleads right to associate issues.

The franchise bar profits more from filtering and defeating frachisee claims.


Is there an economic value to knowing precisely who the “rebel” Tim Hortons franchisees are?

March 23, 2017

Yes, especially if the franchisor wanted to do a mass termination or consolidation of stores.

 

Who would likely collect and deliver the membership list?:

  • franchisor,
  • independent franchisee association – executives,
  • independent franchisee association – management,
  • association lawyer, or
  • franchisee advisors (former franchisor/founder, former president).

Probably the emails sent to a safe server as well.