Articles 2023

This article challenges the theory that the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, is purely procedural, identifying cases where it was used to modify substantive rights.

This article summarizes Heyder v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 28, in which the Federal Court created a framework for assessing a large number of late claims from the settlement.

This article summarizes Facebook, Inc. v. Douez, 2023 BCCA 40, in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the defendants to appeal a liability decision even though the damages trials were still outstanding.

This article summarizes Price v. Lundbeck A/S, 2022 ONSC 7160, in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to certify a class action alleging that a product caused teratogenicity because that covered hundreds of different congenital defects and the evidence was not specific to each defect.

This article summarizes a consultation report for proposed amendments to Saskatchewan's class proceedings legislation.

This article summarizes D’Haene v. BMW Canada, 2022 ONSC 5973, in which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a class action for delay, but then revived it with what was colourfully called a "Phoenix Order".

There are two stages to a class proceeding: the common issues stage, and the individual issues stage. While the jurisprudence on the common issues stage (including certification and common issues trials) is well-developed, settlement usually occurs before the individual issues stage is reached. For judges, counsel, and litigants, therefore, this last phase of a class proceeding presents uncharted territory.

This article summarizes Nissan Canada Inc. v Mueller, 2022 BCCA 338, in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the two-step approach to "some basis in fact" for common issues.

This article summarizes Difederico v. Amazon.com, Inc, 2022 FC 1256, in which the Federal Court stayed a class action under the Competition Act in favour of arbitration.

This article summarizes Johnson v Ontario, 2022 ONCA 725, in which the court held that a class member seeking to opt out late must show excusable neglect and that the extension will not prejudice the class, the defendant, or the administration of justice.