The BC Court of Appeal recently reaffirmed the principles of preferability in class action certification proceedings in the case of Vaugeois v Budget Rent-A-Car, wherein the certification judge had determined that a class proceeding was not the preferable forum to decide the disputes between vehicle renters who had allegedly been improperly charged for vehicle repairs.… Continue Reading
The Ontario Court of Appeal is once again making headlines with the case of Ramdath v George Brown College, which has turned out to be a doubly significant case at the intersection of class actions and consumer protection legislation.… Continue Reading
Following our last post, the Supreme Court has released its decision in Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37. The Court’s decision in Strickland, referenced in more detail in this blog post, speaks to the circumstances in which a federal court can decline to exercise its jurisdiction to grant judicial review remedies. The appellants in Strickland sought a declaration that the Federal Child Support Guidelines were invalid and ultra vires the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3. The Federal Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction holding that the matter should be brought before a … Continue Reading
Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Hopkins v. Kay, 2015 ONCA 112, in which it held that the mere existence of a legislative scheme to address privacy-related breaches of personal health information does not preclude a private action from being brought to address said breaches.… Continue Reading
The Supreme Court of Canada has released a number of significant decisions since our last update that are of interest to Canadian businesses and professions, addressing the level of evidence required of a material change to support a securities class action in Quebec, damages for wrongful conviction, and requirements for expert evidence.… Continue Reading
On April 17, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) rendered its opinion in Theratechnologies inc. v. 121851 Canada inc., 2015 SCC 18 (Theratechnologies), its first decision on the Quebec statutory secondary market liability regime adopted in 2007 pursuant to a reform of the Quebec Securities Act (QSA). Like its sister statutes in other provinces, although the QSA regime facilitates a plaintiff’s burden, mostly by presuming that variation in market price is linked to a misinformation or omission, it also imposes an authorization process under which a claimant must establish that its action is brought in good … Continue Reading
In Andriuk v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., the Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed a certification judge’s decision that an action, commenced pursuant to Alberta’s Class Proceedings Act, did not meet the requirements for certification of a class proceeding, based on a failure to demonstrate a viable methodology for establishing causation and damages on a class-wide basis.… Continue Reading
The following article may be of interest to readers of this blog: Regulatory Settlement Will Not Prevent Class Action: SCC Certifies Fischer
On December 12, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much anticipated decision in AIC Limited v. Fischer, 2013 SCC 69. The Court unanimously held that a restitution payment in settlement of regulatory proceedings does not preclude certification of a class action on behalf of the same investors who received compensation through the regulatory process. Read more.… Continue Reading
In Precision Contractors Ltd v Government of Saskatchewan, 2013 SKCA 57, the Court of Appeal found that a common issue of constitutional validity did not, in and of itself, make a class action not the “preferable proceeding”.
The Court of Appeal held that there was no absolute rule that a class action was perforce ill-suited to a claim for a declaration that a provincial taxing enactment was unconstitutional. In addition, the Court of Appeal noted the certification judge’s next step, bifurcating the proceedings by conditionally adjourning the certification application pending the determination of the constitutional issue in a … Continue Reading
In the newly published World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions Around the Globe, McCarthy Tétrault litigators David Hamer and Shane D’Souza co-authored the “Multijurisdictional and Transnational Class Litigation: Lawsuits Heard ‘Round the World” chapter. The chapter offers guidance to international lawyers who represent clients involved in cross-border, multinational and international class actions.
World Class Actions is a practical guide for lawyers, clients, legal support professionals, academics, policymakers and judges on the procedures available for class, group and representative actions internationally. Each chapter is written by a local attorney familiar with the laws, best practices, legal … Continue Reading
For those who may be interested, three of McCarthy Tétrault’s litigators authored a chapter on class actions in the ABA’s recently published 2012 Annual Review of Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation. “Cross-Border and Multi-Jurisdiction Class Actions – A Canadian Perspective”, authored by Anthony Alexander, Christopher Hubbard and Elder Marques, discusses how Canadian courts have applied jurisdictional principles in class actions, both in assessing whether certification is appropriate and in enforcing foreign class action orders.
The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the “ongoing effects” of a conspiracy do not extend the applicable limitation period for the purposes of a civil action brought under section 36(1) of the Competition Act for a criminal conspiracy contrary to section 45(1). The Court of Appeal’s affirmation of the lower Court’s decision also suggests that the “ongoing damage” caused by the conspiracy does not extend the limitations period either. Instead, the limitations period starts at the latest when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the acts constituting the breach of the Act, and possibly even earlier, as … Continue Reading
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently announced that it will hear arguments in Abdula v. Canadian Solar. The appeal raises the thorny question of when issuers listed solely on foreign exchanges may be sued for secondary market misrepresentations under the Ontario Securities Act. This marks the first time that the issue will be considered by a Canadian appellate court.
The Ontario Divisional Court recently granted leave to appeal in Johnston v. Sheila Morrison Schools, a certified class action involving allegations of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against a school and its headmaster. The primary issue on appeal is whether students may make claims against schools on a several basis and thereby avoid exposing their parents to counterclaims or third-party claims.
The certification order provided for three classes of plaintiffs: (i) residential students, (ii) day students, and (iii) family members of residential students. A statement of defence was filed prior to certification. Following certification, the defendants sought to … Continue Reading
On September 26, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear an appeal from a decision of Cullity J., who rightly characterized the issue on the motion before him as one “of considerable importance for the proper conduct of class proceedings.” The decision will be important to class counsel since it addresses the duty to explain and clearly document the risks of adverse costs consequences to their representative plaintiff clients. If upheld, the decision may also provide a potential avenue for defendants in successful class actions to seek costs where class counsel have not discharged their burden.
In Attis v.