Articles

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.

This article explores the current state of workplace discrimination and harassment class actions, and offers key takeaways and advice for employers.

In Strohmaier v British Columbia (Attorney General), the British Columbia Supreme Court clarified that a history of misconduct on the part of counsel will be relevant to the analysis of the quality and experience of class counsel, in deciding between competing firms on a carriage motion.

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.