Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Justice Ramsay evaluated whether the proposed settlement between Tyson Larence and Honk Mobile Inc. met the reasonableness standard required for court approval under the Class Proceedings Act.
   
• Sufficiency of class notice under section 19 of the CPA was assessed despite a low email open rate among class members.
   
• Two objections challenged the per-member settlement amount, the promotional-code distribution method, and the proposed class counsel fees.
   
• Class counsel sought approval of fees equal to 25% of the total settlement, consistent with the existing contingency fee agreement.
   
• An honorarium of $500 for the representative plaintiff was evaluated against the guidance set out in Parsons v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union.
   
• Ultimately, the court approved the settlement, the counsel fees, and the honorarium as fair and reasonable.
   

Facts of the case

Tyson Larence, the representative plaintiff, sought court approval of a settlement reached with the consent of the defendant, Honk Mobile Inc. Honk Mobile operates a technology platform through which users can purchase parking from third-party parking operators. The action was brought on behalf of all persons located in Canada who used the Honk Mobile platform between June 23, 2022, and July 24, 2024, to pay for parking and, in doing so, paid a service fee. The plaintiff alleged that Honk Mobile engaged in conduct contrary to the Competition Act and was unjustly enriched by failing to disclose the service fee in its initial price representation, only adding the fee later in the purchasing process. Honk Mobile denied the allegations and admitted no wrongdoing or liability. The plaintiff filed the Notice of Civil Claim on August 19, 2024, and Honk Mobile filed its Response to Civil Claim on July 29, 2025. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle on February 11, 2026, and signed a formal agreement on April 1, 2026. On April 15, 2026, Justice Ramsay certified the action for settlement purposes only and approved the notice plan to class members.

Under the settlement, Honk Mobile agreed to provide benefits with a total value of $463,120. Of that amount, $347,340 funds an individualized promotional credit of $0.35 for each class member, distributed directly without a claims process and expiring December 31, 2027. Honk Mobile agreed to bear the cost of distribution. The remaining $115,780 was earmarked for class counsel fees, subject to court approval, with a proposed honorarium to be paid to Mr. Larence out of those fees. The agreement also provided for a release of claims and dismissal of the action with prejudice and without costs, with no admission of liability. Notice of the settlement was distributed by direct email in English and French to class members with verified addresses, supplemented by a long-form notice posted on class counsel's website. Honk Mobile held email addresses for approximately 92% of the roughly 992,400 total class members, and 98.2% of emails sent were successfully delivered, meaning more than 90% of the class received direct notice. Of those delivered, only 14.798% were recorded as opened.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The claim engaged the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, on which the court noted there is limited merits jurisprudence. Approval of the settlement itself was governed by section 35 of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, which requires that a class proceeding be settled only with court approval, after which the settlement binds every class member who has not opted out. Sufficiency of notice was assessed under section 19 of the CPA, while section 38 of the CPA required that class counsel fees and disbursements receive separate court approval.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Ramsay applied the well-established test for settlement approval, holding that the standard is reasonableness rather than perfection, citing Chun v. Vancouver Whitecaps FC LP, 2026 BCSC 566. Relevant factors included the likelihood of recovery, the nature of discovery evidence, the settlement's terms, counsel's recommendation and experience, the anticipated future cost and duration of litigation, the number and nature of objections, and the presence of good faith negotiations. The court found the likelihood of recovery uncertain given the novel Competition Act questions involved, and accepted that genuine litigation risk informed the settlement. The negotiations were conducted at arm's length and in good faith with the assistance of a neutral mediator, with no indication of collusion. Regarding notice, the court held that sufficiency under section 19 does not depend on confirmation that class members actually opened the notice, since that is a variable outside the parties' control, and found the combination of wide email distribution with online long-form notice adequate.

Two objections were filed. The first objector described the individual settlement amount as "almost laughable" and argued the settlement was an inadequate "penalty for breaking the law"; the court found this framing directed at criminal consequences and therefore not relevant to a civil claim. The second objector raised three concerns: the per-member amount, the choice to distribute credits by promotional code rather than automatic account application, and the proposed class counsel fees. The court found automatic credit application was not technologically feasible on Honk Mobile's existing platform without significant new infrastructure, and noted that while the parties could have agreed to donate unused credits to charity, its role was to assess reasonableness rather than rewrite the settlement's terms. On counsel fees, the court rejected the objector's characterization of the litigation as comparable to extortion, finding the claim was not frivolous and that Honk Mobile faced genuine litigation risk. On the fee amount itself, the court applied the principle that a contingency fee agreement is the starting point for assessing reasonableness in British Columbia, absent a principled reason to reduce it, citing Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2018 BCSC 2091. Considering the factors from Chun at para. 37 — including results achieved, risk, time expended, complexity, and quality of counsel — the court noted class counsel had docketed 129.10 hours valued at $53,630 as of June 30, 2026, and that the proposed fee represented roughly 2.16 times that docketed value before disbursements and taxes were factored in, a multiplier the court considered justified by the contingency risk assumed on a novel claim. On the honorarium, the court applied the guidance from Parsons v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, 2010 BCCA 311, and found that Mr. Larence had fulfilled his duties as representative plaintiff, including reviewing the claim, providing evidence in support of certification, remaining engaged with counsel throughout the proceeding, and approving the settlement's material terms.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class as a whole. Honk Mobile Inc. and the plaintiff class were the parties to the approved resolution, under which Honk Mobile will provide settlement benefits valued at $463,120 in total. Of this, class counsel fees of $115,780, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, were approved as fair and reasonable, and a $500 honorarium for Mr. Larence, payable out of those fees, was also approved on the basis that it was modest and proportionate to his effort and risk and would not reduce the class's recovery.