Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

What is a class action? Why do we have them? How much do lawyers and litigation funders benefit from them, and why? This article, originally published by Lexpert, gets into the nitty gritty of these questions, through the lens of how different Canadian jurisdictions approach the issues of litigation funding, adverse costs, and counsel remuneration.

In a trilogy of cases in 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal sharply limited the availability of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in privacy and data breach class actions involving third-party hackers. This article considers two recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decisions which demonstrate that while the Trilogy narrowed the scope of privacy class actions in Ontario, it did not necessarily close the door.

In Gifford v. Air Canada, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied certification of a proposed class proceeding which alleged a supply-suppression conspiracy among several airlines. This article highlights key takeaways concerning certification motions in proposed competition class actions, including the importance of taking into account the dynamics of the Canadian market and the economic complexities associated with an allegedly cartelized product.

The responsibilities assumed by a representative plaintiff are significant and can give rise to pressure, financial risk and public scrutiny. There has been much judicial debate over the question of whether a representative plaintiff should receive some monetary amount in recognition of taking on the role. This article summarizes the Canadian courts' treatment of the issue and considers some recent and notable trends coming out of the Ontario courts.

In July 2025, the Federal Court of Canada certified a drip pricing class action for the first time but declined to certify the plaintiff’s double ticketing claim. In Deane v. Canada Post Corporation, 2025 FC 1194, the Federal Court provides important guidance on the drip pricing framework under the Competition Act and clarified the difference between drip pricing and double ticketing.

For over a decade courts have grappled with the question of what amounts to a ‘public correction’ for a Part XXIII.1 secondary market securities misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act. One issue that has repeatedly arisen but has not been resolved is whether there can be a ‘partial public correction’ of a misrepresentation.

In Carcillo, the Court of Appeal for Ontario engages in a careful review of the law concerning class actions grounded in claims of systemic negligence and institutional abuse, and underscores the importance of a detailed litigation plan at certification.

Sellars v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1477 provides guidance on when the deferral of statements of defence may be appropriate in a proposed class action brought before the Federal Court.

In Lemieux c. Sanimax Lom inc., 2025 QCCS 371, the Superior Court of Quebec’s Chief Justice rejected an unconventional request: to allow four dachshunds to serve as parties and representative plaintiffs in a proposed environmental class action.

After liability has been established in common, how far does the court's authority go to attenuate the ordinary litigation process in determining the damages to be awarded to individual class members? In Hayes v. The City of Saint John, 2025 NBKB 58, the New Brunswick Court of King's Bench held that the vulnerable nature of the class in a historical sexual abuse class action demanded that the individual issues phase of the litigation be dealt with on an expeditious basis.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Knisley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 185, has confirmed that a class proceeding cannot be certified on a conditional basis. On a motion for certification, a motion judge must either certify an action as a class proceeding where the certification test has been met or must deny certification where the criteria for certification have not been met.

Cline v Gymnastics Canada, 2025 BCSC 146 is a pre-certification jurisdictional application brought by the Fédération de Gymnastique du Québec in a proposed historical abuse class action commenced in B.C. The Court reasoned that common issues standing alone do not create territorial competence for the purpose of a national class action. Territorial competence findings in prior product liability cases will not be instructive if the factual underpinnings of those decisions involve “something more”.

In Parkin, one of only a handful of decisions interpreting the new statutory carriage test under the amended Class Proceedings Act, 1992, Justice Leiper granted carriage of a proposed securities class action against TD Bank for alleged misrepresentations with respect to its systemically deficient anti-money laundering controls to the Parkin action. The court found the Parkin action was superior to two competing actions as it avoided both potential concerns relating to contingency-fee splitting with a US firm and limitation period issues.

In Mcdonald v. Guyana Goldfields Inc., 2025 ONSC 2431, Justice Morgan granted a third-party production order in the context of a proposed secondary market misrepresentation class action. Guyana Goldfields demonstrates that, despite courts’ gatekeeping role on secondary market misrepresentation leave motions, they may grant preliminary production orders where the requests are narrow, documents can be identified with specificity, the documents are known to exist, and the documents are not in the possession of the defendants.

The Ontario Superior Court refused to certify a proposed class action against the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services arising from an ODSP privacy breach. The court found that the facts as pleaded could not support the requisite intent or actionable harm for the causes of action advanced.

Class actions became part of the U.K. landscape with their introduction in competition law in October 2015. Since then, third-party litigation funding in that area has surged. However, this trend was halted by two recent decisions: one on the permissibility of certain kinds of funding agreements, and the other on funder control over settlements. This article will describe those developments and their implications for the litigation funding industry in class actions.

This article reviews Barbiero v Pollack, 2024 ONCA 904, where the Court of Appeal for Ontario updated the Langenecker test for dismissal for delay, deciding that delay alone constitutes prejudice. The Court also emphasized that when it comes to dismissal for delay, class actions do not benefit from special treatment or exemptions from the consequences of inordinate delay – certified class actions can be dismissed for delay in the same manner as an individual action.

This article examines the role of independent counsel in class proceedings in carriage motions and class counsel fee approval motions following settlement. This article also explores the benefits and limitations of involving independent counsel at various stages of a class proceeding.

In InvestorCOM Inc. v. L’Anton, 2025 BCCA 40 (“InvestorCOM”), the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a proposed class proceeding should be stayed, prior to the certification hearing, in favour of a similar proposed class action in Ontario. The Court concluded that the fact that there was some overlap between the two proceedings did not mean that one was necessarily an abuse of process. Barring exceptional circumstances, the proper time for determining whether a parallel class proceeding should be stayed is at the certification hearing and not before.

This article reviews Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2024 ONCA 784, in which the Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s decision to dismiss a defendant’s motion to stay a proposed class proceeding in favour of arbitration.

This article summarizes Longair v. Akumin Inc. et al., 2024 ONSC 3675 where the Ontario Superior Court of Justice grants a number of secondary market misrepresentation claims leave to proceed under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certifies a global class.

This article reviews the majority decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26, regarding the limited availability of Charter damages for unconstitutional legislation, a subject of interest to those litigating class actions against governments.

In Jacques v. Canada, 2024 FC 851, the Federal Court refused to certify a data breach class action because class members’ claims became limitations-barred after the proceeding was issued, but before the certification hearing. This decision reminds us that limitations are substantive rights and that class action limitations regimes vary across Canada.

On July 7, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Richard v. The Attorney General of Canada, 2024 ONSC 3800 certified a class proceeding on behalf of all persons who were detained for immigration purposes in a provincial or territorial correctional facility since May 16, 2016, including a subclass of individuals with a mental health condition. The claim asserts causes of action for Charter breaches and in negligence.

This article assesses Metro Taxi Ltd v City of Ottawa, 2024 ONSC 2725, a common issues trial decision holding a government liable for failing to enforce its laws and prosecute a competitor of the class members.

This article considers the incidence and implications of potential fraudulent activity in class actions claims processes.

This article summarizes Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2024 ONSC 2302, in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted certification of the first Canadian class action against a cryptocurrency platform for the illegal trading and distribution of securities.

The recent decision Barbiero v. Pollack, 2024 ONSC 1548, offers guidance to class action practitioners as to when the Court will dismiss a certified class action for delay.

This article compares and contrasts two recent decisions in Federal Court fee approval motions pertaining to mega settlements.

This article summarizes Palmer v. Teva Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 220, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the need to plead and prove concrete injury remains an “essential component to recovery” in negligence and that product liability claims cannot generally be sustained based solely on: (a) the potential increased risk of future harm; (b) bare allegations of psychological harm; and/or (c) pure economic losses, such as out-of-pocket costs for medical services and monitoring.