Articles 2019

This article summarizes Johnson v Ontario, 2022 ONCA 725, in which the court held that a class member seeking to opt out late must show excusable neglect and that the extension will not prejudice the class, the defendant, or the administration of justice.

This article summarizes Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College, 2022 ONSC 5405, in which the court used s. 25 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to address a unique factual problem: the defendants were judgment proof and had erratic insurance coverage that covered some class members' claims but not others.

This article summarizes Bowman v Ontario, 2022 ONCA 477, which provides guidance to lower courts and practitioners on conducting a correct analysis under the cause of action (s. 5(1)(a)) criterion of the Class Proceedings Act.

This article summarizes Le Feuvre v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Company, 2022 ONSC 4136, in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for certification of a proposed employment misclassification class action due to a lack of a factual basis for a common claim. The court also commented on the need for a viable methodology for certifying an aggregate damages claim.

This article summarizes N&C Transportation Ltd. v. Navistar International Corporation, 2022 BCCA 164, in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal set out the factors applicable when weighing the benefits of a multi‑jurisdictional class proceeding against competing extra-provincial actions, including where a proposed settlement has been reached.

This article summarizes the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wong v Pretium Resources Inc., 2022 ONCA 549, which confirms that the reliability of information can be relevant to determining the materiality of information under Ontario's Securities Act.

This article summarizes a recent certification motion emphasizing that the scope of a fiduciary duty is not always the same. When alleging a breach of fiduciary duty, class counsel should carefully consider the nature of that relationship.

In Lubas v Wayland Group, Justice Morgan’s interpretation of s. 29.1 of the CPA represents a liberal and flexible interpretation of that provision. While Justice Morgan recognized the trend in the caselaw towards dismissing for delay when the criteria were not strictly met, he expressly noted that he was prepared to be an outlier that took a more liberal approach that would not automatically see cases dismissed for delay.

A trilogy of new cases – or rather, two new cases and one comment in obiter – interpret Section 4.1 of the amended CPA, and address whether or not a defendant has a presumptive right to bring a motion to dismiss or narrow the case prior to certification. They also, perhaps unintentionally, interface with another recent decision interpreting those amendments that has left some observers asking if the interpretation of Section 4.1 even matters.

The decision in Simpson v Facebook Inc. brings an end to one of several proposed class actions arising from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The Divisional Court upheld the lower Court's determination that there was no evidence for the core allegation and that as such, the action should not be certified.