Your search

In 2017, the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) initiated an independent study to consider Ontario’s experience with class actions since the enactment of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA). During this period, class actions have grown significantly in volume, complexity, and impact in Ontario and across Canada. Class actions also have systemic implications for access to justice, court procedures and efficiency, and government and corporate liability. Finally, this form of litigation has had major financial, policy and even cultural implications across the country.Following an intensive 18-month research project that included over 100 interviews with stakeholders and an empirical examination of Ontario cases, the LCO published its final report, and made over 40 recommendations for amendment and reform of the CPA. It is the first review of the CPA since the Act's inception, and the most detailed examination of class actions in Canada in three decades.

"Whatever deficits remain in the Canadian project to make justice available to all, class actions have been heralded as a success. They have been employed over the past twenty-five years to overcome barriers to justice for those who would otherwise have no recourse to the courts. First proposing a conceptualization of access to justice that moves beyond mere access to a court procedure, leading expert Jasminka Kalajdzic then methodically assesses survey data and case studies to determine how class action practice fulfills or falls short of its objectives. Class Actions in Canada is a timely exploration of the evolution of collective litigation in Canada."--

"Chapter 7: Economic enablers" published on 27 May 2016 by Edward Elgar Publishing.

The recent DRAM settlement in Canada reveals that normative confusion remains about the role of the class action lawyer, the identity of her clients, and the duties owed to them. In this paper, I describe the settlement and in particular, the distribution protocol that gave rise to a legal challenge by five objecting class members. I critique the September 2015 judgment of the court that held human rights legislation is not applicable to class action settlements, and highlight the procedural idiosyncrasies of class actions made evident by the DRAM case, and that have important ramifications for legal ethics. The settlement illustrates the challenges in identifying the content of class counsel's role morality, and may well necessitate a shift in our thinking of what constitutes ethical conduct in the class action context.

In both the U.S. and Canada, the now common use of cy près in the design of class action settlement distribution plans represents a radical transformation of the original cy près doctrine. Despite the facilitative role of class actions in aggregating claims, in some cases there may be no practical way to calculate or pay hundreds of thousands of small claims. In its current manifestation in class actions, cy près has become the mechanism by which aggregation of loss is effected. Cy près is therefore used not only to dispose of unclaimed settlement funds, but to avoid having class members claim a portion of the settlement at all. In this way, cy pres creates the "illusion of class of compensation” (to borrow Martin Redish's term), because the bulk of the class receives no compensation at all.

The overall objective in the court approval process for class counsel fees is to arrive at a fee that is fair and reasonable. Ontario's courts have developed a number of benchmarks in determining fairness and reasonableness, focusing on the success achieved for the class and the work performed by counsel. In a series of cases released in late 2013, however, one Superior Court judge has posited that success achieved and work performed are either unascertainable or useless factors, and has proposed instead that all counsel be awarded a one-third contingency fee in all class action settlements. In this article, I critique that approach, and argue that it is is inconsistent not only with class proceedings legislation, but also out of step with US trends and with case law regarding contingency fees more generally.

There has been a proliferation of writing about commercial litigation funding (“CLF”) over the past few years, in both the academic and popular press. Too often, the literature presents a narrative of extremes. Commentators are either wholly against CLF on the basis that it gives rise to unethical behaviour and the commodification of our civil justice system, or wholly in support of it on the basis that it promotes access to justice and levels the playing field. A conference held at the University of Windsor Law School in July, 2013 brought together leading scholars, judges and lawyers from the United States, Australia and Canada to engage in a nuanced discussion about CLF that mediated between these extreme polarities. The first conference of its kind in Canada, discussion was focused on four themes: regulation, access to justice, ethics and impacts on class actions. In this article, the conference organizers, Dean Camille Cameron and Professor Jasminka Kalajdzic, survey the principal issues in the debates around CLF, summarize the key points in the conference papers, and identify the basic principles that might inform the regulation of litigation funding in Canada and elsewhere.

Mass harm exerts enormous pressure on civil justice systems to provide efficient but fair procedures for redress. In this context, settlement of mass disputes is easily understood as a common good. Yet settlements involving hundreds or thousands of claims, often across jurisdictions, raise concerns about the substantive fairness of the compromise reached by lawyers, and the ability of the court system to ensure meaningful oversight. Unburdening the judicial system from mass claims comes at a price; how much rough justice are we prepared to accept?

Corporate and governmental wrongdoing can affect large numbers of people. Such wrongdoing has an institutional victim as well; mass harm exerts enormous pressure on civil justice systems to provide efficient but fair procedures for redress. In this context, settlement of mass disputes is easily understood as a common good. Yet settlements involving hundreds or thousands of claims, often across jurisdictions, raise concerns about the substantive fairness of the compromise reached by lawyers, and the ability of the court system to ensure meaningful oversight. Unburdening the judicial system of mass claims comes at a price; how much rough justice are we prepared to accept? As the contributions to this book illustrate, the difficulty of balancing these competing interests is ubiquitous. Canadian class action settlement practice is no exception. In this chapter, I first explore the realities of this form of litigation, and to some extent debunk the myth that class actions inevitably result in large monetary settlements. I then turn to a brief discussion of the incentives and disincentives to settle large claims, for both plaintiffs’ lawyers and defendants. In Part III, I describe and critique the judicial framework for the approval of proposed settlements.

In his thoughtful paper on the relative advantages and deficiencies of private and public enforcement mechanisms for improving consumer protection, Craig Jones forces us to ask a fundamental question about our choice of legal tools: under what circumstances, if ever, should reliance be placed on public regulatory bodies, and when should the protection of the public be left to private litigation, principally through class actions?