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 more
