Sentences with phrase «certified class proceeding»

Ontario is an «opt - out» jurisdiction, meaning that persons who do not wish to be part of a certified class proceeding and be bound by its results must take active steps to opt out of the proceeding.

This certified class proceeding is in the examination for discovery phase.

In 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc. [1](«1250»), Justice Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice took the extraordinary step of invalidating the majority of opt - out notices obtained from potential class members in a certified class proceeding due to the irreparable damage caused to the process by the aggressive conduct of a third party.

In 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc. («1250»), Justice Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice took the extraordinary step of invalidating the majority of opt - out notices obtained from potential class members in a certified class proceeding due to the irreparable damage caused to the process by the aggressive conduct of a third party.

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of Horkins J., dated December 14, 2012, denying a motion to certify a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 c. 6 («CPA»).

The court order certifying the class proceeding sets out the definition of the class.

Not exact matches

Since then, I have also proceeded to take classes in animal behavior and training, and am in the final stages of completing my CPDT - KA (certified professional dog trainer).

The students brought a motion to certify their action as a class proceeding pursuant to the Class Proceedingsclass proceeding pursuant to the Class ProceedingsClass Proceedings Act.

Last June, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that both cases should be certified as class actions and allowed to proceed to trial.

Ontario's Divisional Court conditionally certified the action as a class proceeding in April 2009, and the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an attempt by Quizno's to stay the proceedings in a June 2010 ruling.

Perell ruled that records relating to J.K.'s crimes and incarceration, which took place when he was a minor, are relevant to his motion to certify the matter as a class proceeding.

On January 24, 2018, British Columbia Supreme Court certified Nickel v. Weyerhaeuser Company Limited as a class proceeding and appointed Barbara Sirett and David Biggs as the representative plaintiffs of the class.

On March 28 and 29, 2017, Justice Belobaba heard the Plaintiff's motion to certify this action as a class proceeding.

[1] This action was commenced in 1997, certified as a class proceeding in 2001, and tried in 2011.

A. Introduction and factual Background [2] The appellant appeals the judgment that the trial judge rendered on the common issues certified in this class proceeding.

[1] The plaintiffs seek to certify their action as a class proceeding against the Bank of Nova Scotia (the «Bank») and Richard Wilson («Wilson»).

On September 18, 2017, Justice Silverman of the BC Supreme Court released his decision finding that the action has been certified to proceed as a class action.

Class Members are automatically included in a class action once certified, unless they choose to opt - out of the proceeClass Members are automatically included in a class action once certified, unless they choose to opt - out of the proceeclass action once certified, unless they choose to opt - out of the proceeding.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated that class actions may proceed only if they clearly comply with certain fairness prerequisites, some lower federal courts have allowed an end - run around these prerequisites — they certify only a particular issue (just a sliver of the case) for class treatment.

By certifying this action as a class proceeding, the court has not decided if any of the plaintiffs» allegations are true.

Once an action is certified as a class proceeding, it proceeds to a common issues trial where a judge resolves the certified issues that apply to all class members.

On September 18, 2017, Justice Silverman of the BC Supreme Court released his decision finding that the action against Mac's Convenience Stores and three recruitment companies has been certified to proceed as a class action.

On May 30, 2011, this action was certified as a class proceeding for the purposes of settlement and the settlement agreements reached with Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., («Sony»), EMI Group Canada Inc. («EMI»), Universal Music Canada Inc. («Universal»), Warner Music Canada Co. («Warner»), (collectively, the «Record Companies»), the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd. («CMRRA»), the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SODRAC) Inc. and SODRAC 2003 Inc. («SODRAC»)(collectively, the «Collective Society Defendants») were approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

It was certified as a class proceeding [1] in February, 2010 and settled (for the first time) in August, 2014.

UPDATE: Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified this action as a class proceeding.

In certifying the action as a class proceeding, Belobaba J. addressed Manulife's argument that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action claim in respect of the s. 138 claim because the action was not commenced within three years of the alleged misrepresentations (as required by s. 138.14 of the Act and the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Sharma v. Timminco Ltd., 2012 ONCA 107).

In certifying the action as a class proceeding and granting leave to pursue a s. 138 claim, Belobaba J. focused on two aspects integral to asserting the statutory cause of action: the test for leave to pursue such a proceeding, and the requirement under the Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, that the pleadings disclose a cause of acclass proceeding and granting leave to pursue a s. 138 claim, Belobaba J. focused on two aspects integral to asserting the statutory cause of action: the test for leave to pursue such a proceeding, and the requirement under the Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, that the pleadings disclose a cause of acClass Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, that the pleadings disclose a cause of action.

In Gariepy, Justice Nordheimer declined to certify the action as a class proceeding on the basis that the determination of whether the defendant's products were defective did not significantly advance the overall determination of liability, as there were a myriad of reasons why a class member's plumbing system might fail.

In the meantime, two further secondary market liability cases had come before the Court of Appeal on appeal: Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2012 ONSC 3637), in which Justice Strathy reluctantly declined to certify a class action because it was time - barred by the three - year limitation period; and Silver v. IMAX (2012 ONSC 4881), in which Justice van Rensburg granted an order issuing retroactive leave under s. 138.8 of the OSA to allow the claim to proceed.

That bill would ensure that plaintiffs» lawyers prove up front that they will be able to readily identify class members and deliver them the proceeds of any settlement, before a class can be certified.»

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified this action, which means it will proceed as a class action.

4 (1) The court must certify a proceeding as a class proceeding on an application under section 2 or 3 if all of the following requirements are met:... (c) the claims of the class members raise common issues, whether or not those common issues predominate over issues affecting only individual members;

This past Friday the Supreme Court of British Columbia released the May 6 decision in Koubi v. Mazda Canada Inc. [Mazda], certifying a class - action under the Class Proceeding Act (CPA) on behalf of representative who purchased 17,909 Mazda3 vehicles between 2004 and 2007 over an alleged door lock declass - action under the Class Proceeding Act (CPA) on behalf of representative who purchased 17,909 Mazda3 vehicles between 2004 and 2007 over an alleged door lock deClass Proceeding Act (CPA) on behalf of representative who purchased 17,909 Mazda3 vehicles between 2004 and 2007 over an alleged door lock defect.

However, Strathy indicated that had he found the limitation period hadn't expired, he would have granted leave and certified the action as a class proceeding.

On April 14, 2015 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court, certifying the action as a class proceeding.

Third, the court has the discretion to make any order it considers appropriate in a certification application for a multi-jurisdictional proceeding, including certifying only a portion of a proposed class.

Second, in certifying a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding, the court must determine whether it would be preferable for some or all of the claims or common issues to be resolved in existing proceedings elsewhere in Canada.

On March 26, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) issued reasons for judgment certifying the proceedings commenced in Ontario as a class proceeding.

Under the amendments, if a proceeding was certified prior to the coming into force of the amendments, a party may apply to amend the certification order to include non-residents as members of the class.

At certification, the Case Management Judge will be asked to certify this action as a class proceeding.

The case revolves around the federal rules for «certifying» a class so that a class action can proceed.