Articles 2021

This article summarizes a recent certification motion emphasizing that the scope of a fiduciary duty is not always the same. When alleging a breach of fiduciary duty, class counsel should carefully consider the nature of that relationship.

In Lubas v Wayland Group, Justice Morgan’s interpretation of s. 29.1 of the CPA represents a liberal and flexible interpretation of that provision. While Justice Morgan recognized the trend in the caselaw towards dismissing for delay when the criteria were not strictly met, he expressly noted that he was prepared to be an outlier that took a more liberal approach that would not automatically see cases dismissed for delay.

A trilogy of new cases – or rather, two new cases and one comment in obiter – interpret Section 4.1 of the amended CPA, and address whether or not a defendant has a presumptive right to bring a motion to dismiss or narrow the case prior to certification. They also, perhaps unintentionally, interface with another recent decision interpreting those amendments that has left some observers asking if the interpretation of Section 4.1 even matters.

The decision in Simpson v Facebook Inc. brings an end to one of several proposed class actions arising from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The Divisional Court upheld the lower Court's determination that there was no evidence for the core allegation and that as such, the action should not be certified.

In Chow v Facebook, the BC Supreme Court joins several other courts in declining to certify class actions based on a lack of "compensable" harm. The Court held that deployment of judicial resources where there was no evidence of compensable harm "would be the antitheses of judicial economy and would not provide meaningful access to justice."

In a motion to pursue a class action against the Ontario Provincial Police brought by Caledonia residents arising from Caledonia’s road and rail blockade by protestors in 2020, the Superior Court invalidated the mandatory stay arising from section 17 of the CLPA due to its inconsistency with section 96 of the Constitution Act.

In Greenwood, the Federal Court of Appeal certified a claim in systemic negligence. While this may be surprising to some given existing jurisprudence suggesting that negligence for workplace harassment claims are not viable causes of action, in this case certification of this cause of action rested on a very narrow exception – that the claims belonged to individuals who experienced workplace harassment, but who did not have written or unwritten contracts of employment.

The trend of rising judicial skepticism towards class action honouraria recently culminated in Doucet v The Royal Winnipeg Ballet, a February 11, 2022 decision of Perell J concluding that the practice of granting honouraria is wrong and should be stopped altogether as a matter of legal principle. This article examines the impact or possible impact of Doucet on the practice of granting honouraria in Ontario.

On February 9, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its highly anticipated decision in Fresco v. CIBC in a long-running class action regarding the payment of overtime to class members. While Fresco is an important appellate decision, it also raises a number of important questions, including about the extent to which proposed common issues can be introduced (or re-introduced) when the merits of the already-certified common issues are being determined at a common issues trial.

In Bourque v. Insight Productions Ltd. et al (“Bourque”) , the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had its first occasion to dismiss an action for delay pursuant to the new s. 29.1. Although he dismissed the action, Justice Belobaba said it could be refiled against the same defendants but with a different proposed representative plaintiff. The basis for this determination and whether it represents obiter comments is unclear.