Parallel class actions filed in multiple provinces are a familiar feature of Canadian class action practice, long understood to strain one of the central purposes of class proceedings – judicial economy. To address this concern, several provinces have amended their class proceedings legislation based on recommendations from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada to provide additional tools for addressing parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions. Ontario did so in 2020 through amendments made to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA), which included the addition of sections 5(6)-5(8) – provisions that mirror similar provisions related to multijurisdictional class actions already in place in the class proceedings legislation of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
More than five years after these provisions were implemented, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in Yee v. Telus International (Cda) Inc., 2026 ONSC 3165 (Yee), has finally interpreted and applied them. In doing so, the Court has provided valuable guidance for counsel on the factors to be considered where a stay of an Ontario class proceeding is sought on the basis of overlapping parallel class actions.
Background
The plaintiff in Yee commenced a proposed global securities class action in Ontario in January 2025, alleging statutory secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of Ontario’s Securities Act and common law negligent misrepresentation related to the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose materials facts relevant to its development of artificial intelligence products and services.
A parallel proposed class action, Middleton v. TELUS International, had been filed weeks earlier in British Columbia, asserting substantially the same claims regarding the same misrepresentations and corrective disclosures. However, the pleadings in the British Columbia action also assert a claim in oppression under British Columbia’s Business Corporations Act and name twelve additional former directors and officers of Telus Digital as defendants, who are not named as defendants in the Ontario proceeding.
Following commencement of the British Columbia action, the defendants brought a sequencing motion seeking to have the question of leave to advance a claim for secondary market misrepresentation under B.C.’s Securities Act decided before the motion for certification. The B.C. Court dismissed the defendants’ motion, holding that the motion for leave and the motion for certification are to be heard together. This decision was appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal. While the B.C. Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on December 11, 2025, the appeal had not yet been heard as of the date of the decision in Yee.
In Ontario, motions for leave to advance a claim for secondary market misrepresentation under Ontario’s Securities Act and for certification were scheduled for hearing in October 2026. Plaintiff’s counsel served their combined leave and certification record in December 2025. In March 2026, the defendants raised for the first time their intention to bring a motion to stay the Ontario action pursuant to sections 5(6)-5(8) of the CPA. The motion to stay was heard in May 2026.
The First Application of Sections 5(6)-5(8) of Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act
The defendants argued that since the Ontario and British Columbia proposed class actions shared the same subject matter, as well as substantially similar asserted claims and proposed class composition, that judicial economy favoured a single class proceeding advancing in British Columbia. The defendants were supported by the plaintiff in the British Columbia action on the motion.
The Court dismissed the motion to stay the Ontario action, finding first that the inquiry under section 5(6) of the CPA is guided by the objectives and factors set out in section 5(7)(a) and 5(7)(b); that the burden rests on the moving party (which will likely always be the defendant); and that there is no automatic presumption under the new provisions that a duplicative class proceeding must be stayed.
The Court rejected the defendants’ submission, drawn from British Columbia jurisprudence, that the objectives of section 5(6)-5(8) of the CPA should “generally favour a single multi-jurisdictional class proceeding” because “potentially competing class actions” are “antithetical to the concept of judicial economy” and create “the specter of inconsistent and/or irreconcilable judgments.” Rather, the Court found that this framing captured only two of the four objectives set out in section 5(7)(a) of the CPA – judicial economy and the avoidance of irreconcilable judgments – while ignoring the two factors that balance them – ensuring that the interests of all parties in each applicable jurisdiction are given due consideration, and that the ends of justice are served.
In other words, concerns regarding judicial economy cannot triumph at the expense of class members’ access to justice; and for that reason, parallel proceedings may sometimes be permitted to continue even where a class action has been certified elsewhere.
Turning to the factors outlined in section 5(7)(b) of the CPA, the Court found that since the British Columbia and Ontario actions pleaded substantially the same statutory and common-law misrepresentation claims, the analysis turned on the remaining factors – firstly, the stage each proceeding had reached. The Ontario action was found to be more advanced given that a combined leave and certification motion hearing was scheduled, the plaintiff’s record had been served, and a timetable was in place for service of the defendants’ record, while the British Columbia action was stalled in appeal proceedings related to the sequencing of leave and certification. The Ontario action was therefore seen as the more efficient vehicle for class members’ access to justice.
The Court also found that the additional oppression claim in the British Columbia action duplicated relief already available under the misrepresentation claims while carrying its own elements of proof. Specifically, because twelve additional directors and officers of Telus Digital – none of whom had certified the impugned documents alleged to contain misrepresentations –would need to be shown to have had knowledge of the misrepresentations to establish liability, the oppression claim added further complexity. To that end, the Court opined that “more is not necessarily better; in fact, it can be burdensome, distracting, and potentially detrimental, to the claim.”
With respect to the remaining factors, the Court explained that the convenience or inconvenience of any one jurisdiction should be analyzed from the moving defendants’ perspective. Viewed from this perspective, the Court determined that Telus, a global telecommunications company operating in dozens of countries, could not be viewed to be inconvenienced by digital communication, virtual appearances and digitized documents. Further, that since the defendants were represented in both actions by the same counsel based in Toronto, British Columbia was no more convenient than Ontario. As these factors did not establish that either the British Columbia or Ontario action was more favourable, the Court ultimately relied on the more advanced stage of the proposed Ontario class action in deciding to dismiss the defendants’ motion to stay the Ontario proceeding.
Key Takeaways
-
The comparative stage of parallel proceedings is seen as a decisive factor: Where parallel class proceedings are found to be substantially similar with respect to claims asserted and proposed class composition, and the additional listed factors do not strongly favour one jurisdiction over another, the Court will likely rely on the comparative stage of the proceedings to determine whether or not to grant a stay. This type of analysis has been observed in the application of the multijurisdictional provisions in other provincial class proceedings legislation (see: Ravvin v. Canada Bread Company, Limited, 2019 ABQB 686 aff’d 2020 ABCA 424; Kohler v. Apotex Inc., 2015 ABQB 610) and has now been applied by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Yee.
- Defendants should give immediate consideration to motions for stay before taking other interlocutory steps: While the British Columbia action against Telus was filed before the Ontario action, the defendants’ election to challenge the sequencing of the motions for leave and certification in British Columbia, and the procedural delay that this caused because of the pending appeal of that issue, ultimately proved fatal to the defendants’ efforts to stay the Ontario proceeding. The lesson here is that defendants seeking to proceed in a single forum should consider moving early to stay proceedings before taking any interlocutory steps that leave one dispute procedurally behind another.
- The scope of asserted claims matters: An extra-provincial action padded with additional causes of action and defendants may be treated as a less efficient, and therefore a less preferable proceeding. In its analysis, the Court warned plaintiffs not to overload pleadings to establish differences in proceedings based on substantially similar facts and law and has invited defendants to challenge overbroadly pleaded claims as rationale to advance litigation in a leaner forum. The lesson for plaintiffs is that at least in Ontario, a slim, well-targeted claim is more likely to be allowed to carry forward.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.