Articles 2023

Why did the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refuse to certify the Casino Rama privacy breach class action, but then certified the Bell Mobility class action less than a week later? This piece offers a few theories explaining the opposing outcomes.

In Davies v. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, a single class member proceeded to trial - and despite being the successful party, ended up with a $2.5 million adverse costs award for his trouble.

In Brazeau v. Canada, 2019 ONSC 1888, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $20 million in damages for class-wide systemic Charterbreaches following a successful summary judgment motion by the class

Lessons learned from the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Das v George Weston Limited regarding dispositive motions and costs awards.

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal suggests that the court cannot go beyond simply approving or rejecting a proposed settlement or class counsel’s fees, to unilaterally impose amendments to better achieve what the court views as a fair result.

In Jeffrey v. London Life, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that when a class action results in a monetary award that benefits class members – even if they have no “right” to that award – class counsel’s contingency fee may charged against and paid from that award.

In Houle v St. Jude Medical Inc., the Ontario Divisional Court upheld a decision conditionally approving a litigation funding agreement in a products liability class action.

In its first decision of the year, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that arbitration clauses in Uber’s contracts with its drivers were void, and that a proposed class action against Uber could proceed.

In Broutzas v. Rouge Valley Health System, an Ontario court reaffirmed the tight and narrow parameters of the tort of intrusion on seclusion and the limitations on its use to justify a privacy class action.

Even in class actions, there comes a time when enough is enough and the civil justice system will no longer tolerate an inordinate and inexplicable delay. In Smith v Armstrong et al, 2018 ONSC 2435, R.S.J. Gordon granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss a proposed class action for delay and found the plaintiff’s delay to be inordinate where the litigation had not advanced to the certification stage after 17 years.