No results found
Suzanne Chiodo | March 24, 2025
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.
Learn moreChelsea Smith | March 16, 2025
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.
Learn moreCertification Denied in Privacy Breach Proposed Class Action: No Intent, Just Human Error
Soudeh Hosseini | March 15, 2025
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.
Learn moreMiss Independent: The Role of Independent Counsel in Class Proceedings
Jacqueline M. Palef & Emily Wagner | March 15, 2025
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.
Learn moreJonathan Chen & Lynne McArdle | March 15, 2025
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.
Learn moreLochan v. Binance Holdings Limited: Not All Mandatory Arbitration Provisions Are Here To Stay
Aryan Ziaie | November 27, 2024
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.
Learn moreMatthew Taylor | October 10, 2024
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.
Learn moreClass Actions Takeaways from Canada v. Power: Where Next for Charter Damages?
Caitlin Leach | September 30, 2024
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.
Learn moreJacques v. Canada: Limitation Period Issues in Class Actions in the Federal Court
Ashley Paterson, Ethan Schiff, and Julien Sicco, Bennett Jones LLP | September 30, 2024
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.
Learn moreCertification: First Step to Access to Justice for Immigration Detainees
Eris Ritcey | September 20, 2024
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.
Learn morePunish My Competitor: The Common Issues Trial in Metro Taxi
September 20, 2024
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.
Learn moreCase Summary: Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2024 ONSC 2302
Jessica Marshall | June 13, 2024
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.
Learn morePavel Sergeyev | June 13, 2024
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.
Learn morePass Herald v. Google LLC: In Search of a Fair Return
This article reviews Pass Herald v. Google LLC, 2024 FC 305, in which the Federal Court of Canada approved a litigation funding agreement in a proposed competition class action and refused to impose a cap on the combined recovery of class counsel and the funder, despite the defendants’ suggestions that it do so.
Learn moreSCC Releases New Guidance on Requirements for Exclusion Clauses in Contracts of Sale
Jessica Lam, Eric Leinveer, and Daniel Szirmak | June 13, 2024
The Supreme Court of Canada's guidance about statutorily implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act has implications for product liability class proceedings. This article analyzes the breadth of exclusionary clauses applicable to such terms.
Learn moreDon’t Flush the Basics: OCHC v. Sloan Valve Company Affirms Fundamental Product Liability Concepts
Ethan Schiff and Phoebe Goldig | April 02, 2024
This case comment reviews a motion to strike in a product liability matter that concludes claims for statutory warranties require privity of contract, and claims in negligence require compensable damages to person or property, or real and substantial danger.
Learn moreCase Summary: Del Giudice v. Thompson
Valérie Lord & Thuvaaraga Kuganathan | March 25, 2024
On January 31, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Justice Perell’s decision in Del Giudice v. Thompson, 2024 ONCA 70, maintaining the stringent approach established in recent years for “hacker” data breach cases.
Learn moreClaims Against Class Action Administrators: Court Reviews Leave Requirement
Adrian Pel & Ian C. Matthews (Borden Ladner Gervais LLP) | March 25, 2024
This case comment of Cameron-Gardos v. Crawford and Company (Canada) Inc., 2024 ONSC 700, considers the test for seeking leave to sue a class action administrator in the context of a class action settlement agreement.
Learn moreAlexandra Lawrence & Sarah Whitmore | March 25, 2024
In the recent decision of Grozelle v. Corby Spirit and Wine Limited, 2023 ONSC 7212, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has affirmed the impact of the CPA amendments to the preferability criteria as imposing a stricter, more rigorous test for certification, as was first stated by the Court in Banman v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 6187. The decision in Corby is also the first time the amended preferable procedure criterion has not been met.
Learn moreChristine Galea | March 25, 2024
This article summarizes Underhill v. Medtronic Canada, 2023 ONSC 5919, in which the Superior Court adjourned the representative plaintiffs’ motion to discontinue the proposed class action, but utilized multijurisdictional class action protocols to address multijurisdictional sequencing issues raised by the defendants.
Learn moreCase Summary: Sunderland v. Toronto Regional Real Estate Board
Soudeh Hosseini | January 03, 2024
This article summarizes Sunderland v. Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, 2023 FC 1293, in which the Federal Court allowed the action to proceed against the brokers and associations on the narrower claim that they arranged to control certain aspects of the commission structure in potential contravention of s. 45 of the Competition Act.
Learn moreCronos and the Future of the Global Shareholder Class Action
Garth Myers | January 03, 2024
This article summarizes the decision in Badesha v. Cronos Group, Inc., 2023 ONSC 5678, which considered when a court will take jurisdiction over claims of certain class member purchasers of securities on a foreign exchange.
Learn moreNo Harm, No Foul: The Alberta Court of Appeal Dismisses a Novel Claim in Negligence at Certification
Natasha Williams and Irfan Kara | January 03, 2024
This article summarizes the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in Setoguchi v. Uber BV, focusing on the Court's consideration of the relevance of compensable harm beyond nominal damages.
Learn moreHayes v. The City of Saint John: Clarification of Vicarious Liability for Historical Police Wrongs
Elie Waitzer | November 23, 2023
This article summarizes Hayes v. The City of Saint John, 2023 NBCA 79, where the New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently held that municipalities are vicariously liable at common law for torts committed by its police officers during work hours, but not in the execution of core law enforcement functions.
Learn more
