TORONTO -

A $750 million class action suit filed against General Motors of Canada and the Cassels Brock & Blackwell law firm was given the green light to move forward by an Ontario judge this week, according to a statement from plaintiff lawyers.

In the suit, more than 200 former GM Canada dealers who were shut down per the automaker’s bailout argue that GM Canada breached Ontario’s franchise law when it cut ties with the stores.

The dealers are asking to be awarded $750 million in damages.

The suit also names Canadian law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell, which, in anticipation of the automaker’s restructuring, had been retained to represent Canadian GM dealers, officials noted.

Law firms WeirFoulds LLP and Sotos LLP — both out of Toronto — are co-representing the dealers.

Tapped to be the representative of terminated dealers throughout all provinces is Trillium Motor World Ltd., a former GM store out of Toronto.

“The claim alleges that Cassels was in a conflict of interest by simultaneously acting for the Government of Canada in connection with the GM auto bailout,” read a statement Sotos. “One of the conditions for GM to access billions of dollars of government funding was the elimination of a large number of GM dealers.

“The suit alleges that after GM presented a termination package to the affected dealers, Cassels told them to consult their individual lawyers in the limited time which they had to respond to the package. Unable to negotiate as a group, and without group legal counsel, the vast majority of dealers signed back the termination package as presented by GM rather than risking GM filing for a formal insolvency proceeding as GM threatened to do if the dealers rejected the offer,” the statement continued. “The dealers had between two and four business days to accept the package which was offered.”

Moving along, Sotos went on to cite portions of Honorable Justice G.R. Strathy’s decision.

Strathy noted that “[i]t is not realistic to think that an individual franchisee, who has experienced the loss of their business, is financially or psychologically equipped to engage in protracted, complicated and very expensive litigation with one of the largest corporations in North America and a major Canadian law firm.”

Strathy also stated that “[t]his is not a typical solicitor’s negligence case.” He also argued that “important issues concerning lawyers’ duties to their clients, particularly in the context of group retainers” have been brought about."

Sotos’ David Stearns, an attorney for the lead plaintiff, noted that “the elimination of the dealers was a man-made disaster for hundreds of family-owned businesses forced to pay the price for GM’s financial problems. As a result of this decision, the dealers now have a chance to put the pieces back together and mount a recovery of their own.”

A GM Canada spokesperson declined comment on the case this week since it is a matter before the court.

An e-mail to Cassels seeking comment was not immediately returned, as of press time.