class counsel and the costs award is an indemnity for the
payment of legal fees.
 While I share class counsel’s concern that a representative
plaintiff ought not to profit from a class action, I disagree that
such a concern is active in this case. I approved a retainer agreement which assigned the costs award to class counsel, so there is
no possibility that Trillium would enjoy a windfall payment in its
favour even if GM were unsuccessful in this issue.
 In my view, the argument advanced by class counsel is
driven by hypothetical policy arguments rather than decided law.
I have not been referred to any known cases that support the
assertion that the class as a collective, and not the representative
plaintiff has incurred or must pay, subject to court approval, the
fees and disbursements in the class proceeding. This is also seemingly runs contrary to s. 31(2) of the CPA which explicitly
provides that the class members, other than the representative
plaintiff, are not liable for costs.
 The above reasoning reflects the reality of class actions in
an opt-out jurisdiction. Class members often do not know any-
thing about the litigation being carried on. It would be unfair to
present them with an account for a lawsuit in these circumstances
and, similarly, where class members have no liability for costs it is
fairer to conclude that they also have no interest in costs
received. This conclusion is supported, at least in part, by the
decision of Brockenshire J. in Nantais v. Telectronics Proprietary
(Canada) Ltd. (1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 523,  O.J. No. 5386 (Gen.
Div.), at paras. 26, 28, 29 and 30, wherein he held:
This entitlement to costs is clearly a property right, which would be assign-
able by the client, were such assignment not somehow prohibited. Section
33(1) of the Act removes the prohibitions in relation to class proceedings.
As between the parties, any party-party costs awarded are the property of
the client. Under rule 59.03(6), an order for the payment of costs shall direct
payment to the party entitled, and not to the party’s solicitor. However, the
client can, and commonly does, agree with the solicitor to assign such entitlement to the solicitor, and directs payment accordingly.
Here, under the contingency fee agreement, the entitlement of the solicitor
is contingent on success at trial or by settlement. If pursuant to the client’s
direction or otherwise, payments of costs are received by the solicitor before
judgment or settlement there would be an obligation to account, if in the end
the proceedings should fail.
However, that is a matter between counsel and the client. It does not in any
way affect the right of the client to claim costs or the power and authority of
the court to award costs.