Articles 2023

The significance of the Court of Appeal's decision in 3113736 Canada v Cozy Corner transcends issues of actual versus adequate notice, and leaves open the question of when, or whether a class member who does not wish to be bound by a class action can bring a motion to opt out of the class proceeding on the basis of lack of notice, and the test to be applied in those circumstances.

After decades of uncertainty in the area of class actions and tort law, waiver of tort is dead. In its decision in Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc v Babstock, released on July 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada killed off the concept once and for all. What is waiver of tort, how did it arise in this case, and why its sudden demise?

What are the key anticipated developments for Canadian class actions in the year ahead? This article provides some important insights.

On September 20, 2019, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in Pioneer Corp v Godfrey. Godfrey is the Supreme Court’s latest decision involving price-fixing class actions, and expands on and clarifies the basic approach to these cases that the Court laid out six years ago in Pro-Sys Consultants Limited v Microsoft Corporation.

Why did the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refuse to certify the Casino Rama privacy breach class action, but then certified the Bell Mobility class action less than a week later? This piece offers a few theories explaining the opposing outcomes.

In Davies v. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, a single class member proceeded to trial - and despite being the successful party, ended up with a $2.5 million adverse costs award for his trouble.

In Brazeau v. Canada, 2019 ONSC 1888, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $20 million in damages for class-wide systemic Charterbreaches following a successful summary judgment motion by the class

Lessons learned from the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Das v George Weston Limited regarding dispositive motions and costs awards.

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal suggests that the court cannot go beyond simply approving or rejecting a proposed settlement or class counsel’s fees, to unilaterally impose amendments to better achieve what the court views as a fair result.

In Jeffrey v. London Life, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that when a class action results in a monetary award that benefits class members – even if they have no “right” to that award – class counsel’s contingency fee may charged against and paid from that award.