Articles 2023

Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Class Actions in Quebec: The Question Must Be Common… But The Answer Can Be Different For Each Person

On January 30, 2014, the British Columbia Court of Appeal de-certified Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soins de Sante Inc., 2014 BCCA 36, a British Columbia class action alleging violations of both the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (the BPCPA) and the federal Competition Act.

A number of contentious issues related to secondary market securities class actions have been clarified in the five judge panel decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Green v. CIBC et al.

Three groups of cases rise above the rest, establishing key principles on costs, evidentiary burdens and auditor liability.

Claims for pure economic loss resulting from the negligent design of a non-dangerous product have been definitively scrubbed for Ontario consumers by the OCA decision in Arora v. Whirlpool.

In this commentary, Jean-Marc Leclerc recommends amendments to the Class Proceedings Act to make a simpler and more sophisticated approach to class action certification.

Canada’s pending anti-spam legislation has raised expectations of a coming wave of large-scale, national class actions. The Act will provide plaintiffs with the opportunity to bring their action before a court that offers them potential class certification on a national opt-out, no cost basis.

The opt out period is the limited time frame in which class members can either choose to participate in the class proceeding or opt out. What takes place during the opt out period is therefore critical in maintaining the integrity of the class action process.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that both direct and indirect purchasers have tenable causes of action for price-fixing. If there is an identifiable class with a plausible methodology capable of proving harm on a class-wide basis, the action will be certified.

A year ago, in February 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal interpreted the interplay between statutory limitation periods and the tolling effect of s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA) in Sharma v. Timminco Limited.