Litigation Autonomy, Class Actions, and Unexplored Territory
Analyzing the Superior Court’s decision in Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 8158 Introduction Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (the “CPA”) divides class actions into different stages, contingent on whether the litigation is focused on collective or individual issues. A pr…
View the post titled Litigation Autonomy, Class Actions, and Unexplored TerritoryHow do I join a class action?
A class action is a lawsuit that is brought by one or more persons on behalf of a larger group of people whose claims share common legal and/or factual issues. Together, these people form a “class” and are referred to as “class members.” In Ontario and most other provinces,1 class actions …
View the post titled How do I join a class action?Conspiracy theory: Is price-matching illegal?
Federal Court decision sheds light on the difference between unlawful conspiracies and “conscious parallelism”. You pull up to a major intersection. There’s a gas station on every corner. You notice one of the stations is raising the price on its sign by a few cents higher than i…
View the post titled Conspiracy theory: Is price-matching illegal?What is a fair share? Sometimes, nothing
In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court denied a paralegal’s motion to be paid for efforts of questionable significance Class actions often involve matters of public interest. In some cases, this might drive multiple individuals to initiate separate lawsuits or class actions involvi…
View the post titled What is a fair share? Sometimes, nothingUpheld: plaintiffs win common issues trial after 24 years of institutional abuse
In Cavanaugh et al. v. Grenville Christian College et al., 2021 ONCA 755, a unanimous Court of Appeal upheld a decision answering five common issues in the plaintiffs’ favour. This was a resounding win for the class. Class proceedings rarely go to trial. In addition to being a rare common is…
View the post titled Upheld: plaintiffs win common issues trial after 24 years of institutional abuseCorrecting “public correction”: The Court of Appeal provides further guidance in Baldwin v Imperial Metals Corporation
The public correction of misrepresentations has come to play an increasingly prominent role in decisions for leave to proceed with the statutory case of action for misrepresentation provided to secondary market investors under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. In Baldwin v Imperial Metals …
View the post titled Correcting “public correction”: The Court of Appeal provides further guidance in Baldwin v Imperial Metals CorporationOntario Court releases merits decision in medical malpractice class action
After years of litigation, a medical malpractice class action has been decided on its merits. On September 15, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court released its common issues trial decision in Levac v. James, 2021 ONSC 5971. The class action resulted in the plaintiff achieving complete success a…
View the post titled Ontario Court releases merits decision in medical malpractice class actionFirst reported decision on s. 4.1 of the amended CPA – Dufault v Toronto Dominion Bank
In Dufault v Toronto Dominion Bank, 2021 ONSC 6223, the Ontario Superior Court considered the sequencing of pre-certification motions under s. 4.1 of the amended Class Proceedings Act for the first time. The amendment provides as follows: Early resolution of issues 4.1 If, before the hearing…
View the post titled First reported decision on s. 4.1 of the amended CPA – Dufault v Toronto Dominion BankSue me twice, shame on me: defendants to face multiple class actions after holding out for “least formidable foe”
A decision from the Divisional Court last month confirms that defendants cannot avoid litigating against the best-prepared plaintiff by strategically defending (or not defending) certification motions in different jurisdictions. The decision, Kirsh v Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2021 ONSC 6190, uph…
View the post titled Sue me twice, shame on me: defendants to face multiple class actions after holding out for “least formidable foe”Securities misrepresentation class action gone wrong – Superior Court denies leave under section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act and refuses certification of remaining claims
In Badesha v Cronos Group, Justice Morgan denied the plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed with statutory misrepresentation claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (“OSA”) and for certification pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. The case raises interesting questi…
View the post titled Securities misrepresentation class action gone wrong – Superior Court denies leave under section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act and refuses certification of remaining claimsReceive Blog Posts
By subscribing to our blog, you will receive an email when a new post is added. You can unsubscribe at any time by sending an email to us at [email protected] with the word “unsubscribe” in the subject line.