Articles 2020

Certification denied when multiple medical products treating multiple symptoms with multiple complaints not suitable for certification. Leave to focus on one device granted.

Applying the AIC decision, access to justice remains a key factor for the court deciding certification.

The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the ability of class counsel to recast its failed certification arguments on appeal, so long as the "conceptual core" of the case remains consistent.

The BCCA has confirmed that if causation is to be certified as a common issue, the plaintiff must adduce evidence that there is a plausible and credible methodology for establishing causation on a class-wide basis.

The OCA has determined that the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) is not a “complete code” and therefore did not “oust” the plaintiff’s common law tort claim for breach of privacy (the tort of intrusion upon seclusion).

The Ontario Court of Appeal's important new judgment on secondary market misrepresentation claims in Bayens v. Kinross Gold Corp., 2014 ONCA 901 clarifies the interaction between the leave and certification tests, and reinforces the practical dependency of common law claims upon the statutory cause of action to be certified.

Whether there must be a representative plaintiff with a personal cause of action against each defendant in an industry-wide class action was recently addressed by the SCC in Marcotte. The court concluded that it is not required in all instances.

Should an employer be held vicariously liable if an employee breaches the privacy of a company’s customers? According to Smith J. in Evans v The Bank of Nova Scotia, vicarious liability for the nascent tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” could be the basis of a nation-wide class action.

Will the US experience of enterprising class counsel seeking to arbitrate on a class-wide basis make its way over the border? This article explores the state of the law on class arbitration in both jurisdictions.