Articles 2022

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.

In a series of decisions released in November 2013, Belobaba J. established a new framework within which he will fix costs of certification motions. Will other judges follow suit?

To be approved, a settlement must be substantively, procedurally, circumstantially and institutionally fair to the class. This one wasn't.

Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Class Actions in Quebec: The Question Must Be Common… But The Answer Can Be Different For Each Person

On January 30, 2014, the British Columbia Court of Appeal de-certified Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soins de Sante Inc., 2014 BCCA 36, a British Columbia class action alleging violations of both the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (the BPCPA) and the federal Competition Act.

A number of contentious issues related to secondary market securities class actions have been clarified in the five judge panel decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Green v. CIBC et al.