Ontario Government Proposes Significant Changes to the Class Proceedings Act
The Ontario government this week introduced the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2019 (“Act”). In addition to other broad changes, the Act, which has not yet become law, contains significant amendments to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. Some of the more significant changes which could affect class proceedings are outlined below.
Registration of Class Proceedings
Any person who commences a class proceeding will be required to register it that same day in accordance with regulations to be later made under the Act. Proof of registration will also be required in one of the affidavits filed in the motion for certification. It is anticipated that the registration requirements will likely involve registering the class action with the Class Action Database of the Canadian Bar Association.
Mandatory Hearing of Certain Motions
Motions brought that would (a) dispose of the proceeding in whole or in part; or (b) narrow the issues to be determined or the evidence to be adduced in the proceeding, will have to be heard and disposed of before the certification motion, absent a court order that the motions be heard together. Presently, such pre-certification motions are generally discouraged by the courts.
Heightened Requirements to Establish a Class Action is the Preferable Procedure
To satisfy the existing certification test, a representative plaintiff must, among other things, demonstrate that a class proceeding is the preferable procedure to resolve common issues among the class members. Under the amended regime, representative plaintiffs will be required to show that a class proceeding is superior to all reasonably available means of determining the entitlement of the class members to relief or addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant. This includes any quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding, case management or any other remedial scheme or program outside of a class proceeding, which might better resolve the matter. In addition, it must be demonstrated that questions of fact or law common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. This change may, in part, be directed at incentivizing defendants to offer alternative compensation to prospective plaintiffs before a class action is commenced or certified.
Multi-jurisdictional Class Proceedings
Ontario courts will be required to consider class proceedings commenced in other jurisdictions to determine whether it would be preferable for some or all of the claims raised in a proposed Ontario class proceeding to be resolved in the other jurisdiction rather than under the Ontario regime. The court may also certify a multi-jurisdictional proceeding where Ontario is the appropriate venue for the proceeding.
Carriage Motions
Where two or more proceedings involve the same or similar subject matter, the court may, on motion of a representative plaintiff in one of those proceedings, order that one or more of the proceedings be stayed. Any such carriage motion must be made within 60 days of the day on which the first proceeding was commenced and be heard as soon as practicable. Where a stay is granted, the court must also bar the commencement of any other proceeding involving the same or similar subject matter and some or all of the same class members, without leave of the court. Carriage motion decisions will be final and not subject to appeal. Solicitors for the representative plaintiffs who are parties to the carriage motion will bear the costs of the motion and cannot attempt to recoup any portion of the costs from the class or any class member or from the defendant. Class proceedings which would involve the same or similar subject matter and some or all of the same class members as an existing proceeding, cannot be commenced without leave of the court if more than 60 days have passed since the existing proceeding was commenced.
Notice for Class Members
There are various changes to notice requirements under the Act, including that notices be written in a plain language manner and in both official languages, unless the court orders otherwise.
Settlements
Settlements may only be approved if they are fair and reasonable and in the best interests of class members. There will be specific evidentiary requirements in settlement approval motions, including evidence of the risks of continued litigation, the range of possible recoveries and the method used for valuation of the settlement.
Limitation Period
Additional circumstances have been added under which the applicable limitation period resumes running against a class member following the commencement of a proceeding. This includes circumstances in which the court refuses to certify the proceeding as a class proceeding. The limitation period for contribution and indemnity claims by a defendant is also suspended in favour of the defendant on commencement of a class proceeding and resumes running as soon as the time for appeal of the court’s decision to certify or refuse to certify the proceeding has expired, or any such appeal has been finally disposed of.
Mandatory Dismissal for Delay
Proceedings commenced under the Act must be dismissed for delay, on motion, after one year unless the representative plaintiff has filed a final and complete motion record for certification and certain other criteria have been met.
Appeals
Orders both certifying and refusing to certify a proceeding as a class proceeding may be appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Third-Party Funding Agreements
Any third party funding agreement will be subject to the court’s approval obtained on motion by the representative plaintiff as soon as practicable once the agreement is entered into. Third party funding agreements not approved by the court will be of no force or effect. The Act includes various factors for the court to consider in approving third party funding agreements, including that the agreement must be fair and reasonable and will not diminish the rights of the representative plaintiff. Proposed funding agreements will need to be provided to the court in full, and to the defendants, and only information which may reasonably be considered to confer a tactical advantage upon the defendant can be redacted.
Implications
Once enacted, the foregoing changes can be expected to have significant implications for all parties involved in class proceedings in Ontario. It is not clear at this time when the amendments could become law, but will likely not be before mid-2020 at the earliest.
Authors
Insights
-
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Is Your Trademark at Risk? Understanding the TMOB’s New Pilot Project
In January 2025, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) is launching a pilot project in which the Registrar of Trademarks will issue 50–100 section 45 notices per month for randomly selected trademark… -
Capital Markets
Canada Initiates Consultations and Proposes New Measures to Strengthen Anti-Modern Slavery Efforts
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain entities to combat… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Rise of Trademark Phishing Scams
There has been a reported surge in trademark phishing scams. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) issued a statement warning of an email phishing scam targeting members of the public by… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Climate Change Suits Against the Government: Mathur v. Ontario Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has released its appeal decision in Mathur v. Ontario involving a lawsuit by youth applicants challenging as inadequate Ontario’s legislated targets and plans for… -
Capital Markets
Clarification on Rules Relating to the Removal of Directors by Shareholders
In OneMove Capital Corporation v. Dye & Durham Limited (“OneMove v. D&D”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) held that shareholders may not submit a proposal under section… -
Capital Markets
Delaware Court Finds Advance Notice Bylaw Amendments Unenforceable, But Denies Relief Based on Dissident Shareholders’ Deceptive Conduct
The Supreme Court of Delaware’s recent decision in Kellner v. AIM ImmunoTech Inc. provides important guidance on the limits of a board’s authority to amend an “advance notice” bylaw in the context of…
Featured Work
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex Inc. acquires Searchlight Pharma Inc.
Goodmans LLP advised Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of Searchlight Pharma Inc… -
Shareholder Activism
Browning West achieves landmark victory in Gildan Activewear proxy campaign
Goodmans LLP acted for Browning West, LP in the successful reconstitution of Gildan Activewear’s entire board, culminating in the reinstatement of CEO Glenn Chamandy… -
Restructuring
LoyaltyOne cross-border restructuring
Goodmans LLP is counsel to KSV Restructuring Inc. in its capacity as court-appointed monitor of LoyaltyOne, Co. in its restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act before… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Neighbourly Announces Successful Closing of Take-Private Transaction with Persistence Capital Partners
Goodmans LLP advised Brookfield Asset Management Ltd., through its Special Investments program, in connection with its structured equity investment of $320 million to partially fund the take-private… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Forum Energy Technologies acquires Variperm Energy Services
Goodmans LLP advised Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. in the acquisition of Variperm Energy Services… -
Shareholder Activism
Aimia Inc.'s largest shareholder, Mithaq, plans takeover bid
Goodmans LLP represented The Special Committee of the Board of Directors of Aimia Inc., in connection with an unsolicited takeover bid for Aimia by Mithaq Capital, Aimia's largest shareholder…
News & Events
-
- 04:00 PM Arbitration - Domestic and International
Peter Ruby at The Advocates' Society: Arbitration Advocacy
Join Goodmans partner Peter Ruby at The Advocates' Society Arbitration Advocacy webinar on Tuesday, March… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Goodmans Lawyers Recognized in the Lexpert Special Edition: Litigation 2024
We are pleased to announce the Lexpert Special Edition: Litigation 2024 continues to feature Goodmans lawyers among Canada's experts in litigation.Congratulations to our 10 featured lawyers:Andrew… -
Banking and Financial Services
Goodmans Once Again Receives Top-Tier Recognition from The Legal 500 Canada
We are pleased to announce Goodmans LLP has once again received top-tier recognition from The Legal 500 Canada in their 2025 Guide released today.Recognition from The Legal 500 is based on independent…