How Much is Too Much? Comparing the Counsel Fees Awarded in Moushoom v Canada (Attorney General) and Manuge v Canada

OVERVIEW

In Moushoom v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1739 (“Moushoom”), and Manuge v Canada, 2024 FC 68 (“Manuge”), the Courts assessed the fairness of class counsel fees in “mega-fund” settlements (recoveries exceeding $100 million). While the settlement fund in Moushoom is 30 times greater than in Manuge, class counsel’s fee is lower.

The disparity in class counsel awards between Moushoom and Manuge hinges on the risks undertaken and the outcomes attained by class counsel. In Manuge, the claims were entirely novel, but in Moushoom part of the claim overlapped with a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“CHRT”) matter. Although class counsel in Moushoom achieved significant results, they were not as remarkable as in Manuge, where additional calculation errors found by class counsel led to a larger settlement.

These cases demonstrate that courts approving class counsel fees require rigorous justification for fair fees, especially in cases seeking to address historical injustices or cases in which the complexity and workload significantly deviate from initial expectations. These cases underscore the importance for class counsel to establish transparent mechanisms to ensure accountability and fairness.