Articles

In the wake of COVID-19, which has strained already limited judicial resources, the Alberta Court of Appeal has issued a decision addressing the need for judicial economy and the avoidance of duplicative and overlapping proceedings in multijurisdictional class actions.

An exclusivity order prevents the commencement of another action on the same facts without leave of the Court, effectively deciding carriage of the matter. In Harpreet v Cronos, the Court ruled that carriage would be dealt with when and if another proposed class action on the same subject matter was commenced. The Court viewed the request for an exclusivity order as “a form of end-run around a potential carriage motion."

Recent settlement approval decisions issued by several provincial courts provide useful commentary on the appropriate scope of a release in a class action settlement.

In Makris v. Endo International PLC, Justice Glustein approved a settlement of the class action but rejected the request for an honorarium payment to the representative plaintiff. He noted that honorarium payments were “exceptional” and “rarely done,” and available only when a representative plaintiff had “gone well above and beyond the call of duty,"

The significance of the Court of Appeal's decision in 3113736 Canada v Cozy Corner transcends issues of actual versus adequate notice, and leaves open the question of when, or whether a class member who does not wish to be bound by a class action can bring a motion to opt out of the class proceeding on the basis of lack of notice, and the test to be applied in those circumstances.

After decades of uncertainty in the area of class actions and tort law, waiver of tort is dead. In its decision in Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc v Babstock, released on July 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada killed off the concept once and for all. What is waiver of tort, how did it arise in this case, and why its sudden demise?

What are the key anticipated developments for Canadian class actions in the year ahead? This article provides some important insights.

On September 20, 2019, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in Pioneer Corp v Godfrey. Godfrey is the Supreme Court’s latest decision involving price-fixing class actions, and expands on and clarifies the basic approach to these cases that the Court laid out six years ago in Pro-Sys Consultants Limited v Microsoft Corporation.

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.