A Manitoba court approved a $129-million settlement of a class action over segregation in provincial custodial facilities, finding that compensation and an agreed policy-review process offered a fair resolution despite significant risks if the case went to trial.
In Gamblin et al. v. The Government of Manitoba, Justice Bock approved the settlement and class-counsel fees on June 4, 2026, and released written reasons on July 22. The agreement resolved allegations of systemic negligence, breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of Charter rights without an admission of liability by Manitoba.
The fund covers approved claims as well as administration expenses, legal fees and disbursements. It is not a $129-million damages award payable entirely to former inmates, nor did the court decide that the alleged rights violations had been proved.
Base payments and additional compensation
The settlement provides base payments of up to $9,000 for eligible youth claimants, $6,000 for eligible claimants in the serious-mental-illness group and $3,000 for eligible prolonged-segregation claimants. Additional serious-harms awards depend on qualifying time in segregation or specified recorded harms.
The maximum combined compensation is $100,000 for a youth claimant, $91,000 for a claimant in the serious-mental-illness group and $88,000 for a prolonged-segregation claimant. These are ceilings rather than guaranteed payments. The agreement allows proportionate reductions if the fund cannot cover all claims, and potentially returns up to $12 million in residual funds to Manitoba.
Eligibility is determined through the claims process, with separate procedures for contested claims and placements that are presumptively barred by limitation periods. Proactio was appointed administrator, and class counsel will review records to help assess claims.
The agreement also extended the class period to June 4, 2026. The later court-approved notice describes separate classes with detailed conditions: youth placements dating back to September 12, 2006, and placements in the serious-mental-illness and prolonged-segregation classes dating back to September 12, 2012. Class membership alone does not establish entitlement to a particular payment.
Why the court accepted the compromise
The plaintiffs faced uncertainty over whether their evidence would be accepted and whether liability could be established across the class. Manitoba argued, among other things, that the forms of segregation used in its facilities did not constitute solitary confinement. Its 2017 policy changes and the variety of segregation practices created additional litigation risks.
Bock found that extensive discovery and preparation for a planned trial had put counsel in a strong position to assess the case and negotiate. No objections to the settlement were received, while 65 class members filed statements supporting it.
Beyond compensation, counsel for both sides agreed to meet quarterly for two years after approval to discuss reforms to segregation conditions. The judge regarded that review process as a benefit that the plaintiffs could not have secured through a judgment after trial. It was an agreement to discuss reform, not a finding that particular reforms had already been implemented.
Fees and the later claims notice
The court approved $33.7 million in legal fees for Koskie Minsky LLP, plus $4.044 million in taxes, and approximately $697,000 in disbursements, all from the settlement fund. It also approved $20,000 honoraria for each of representative plaintiffs Virgil Gamblin and Adem Mohamud.
In assessing the fee, Bock considered both work already done and counsel’s expected continuing role in administering claims. The reasons referred to approximately $14.5 million in combined past and estimated future billable time; the fee was not justified solely by hours already recorded.
A later court-approved notice available from Proactio sets August 24, 2027 as the claim deadline. It explains that people must submit a claim form even if they previously gave information to class counsel, another lawyer or a support agency. The notice contains the full class definitions, eligibility conditions and special process for potentially time-barred placements; individual entitlement remains for the administrator or adjudicator to determine.
Sources: Gamblin et al. v. The Government of Manitoba, 2026 MBKB 101; court-approved settlement notice.
