Earlier this year, Justice Perell approved a replacement class representative in Sondhi v. Deloitte Management Services LP on a motion for what has already been an exhausting certification
process in a class proceeding.
When class proceedings were first considered in Ontario by the Ontario Law Reform Commission's «Report on Class Actions», a «no - costs» regime was recommended whereby the losing
party in a class proceeding was not required to pay the costs of the winning party.
(2) After a dispute that may
result in a class proceeding arises, the consumer, the supplier and any other person involved in it may agree to resolve the dispute using any procedure that is available in law.
The Court found that the claims
made in this class proceeding were not «released claims» as defined in the executed release, and the action could proceed.
However, non-residents must opt in to
participate in the class proceeding, meaning that out - of - province class members are not bound by the result if they do not actively choose to join the case.
The plaintiff
in this class proceeding sued on 14 alleged misrepresentations, 11 of which were made more than three years before the action was commenced.
The plaintiff thus sought and obtained an order declaring that the limitation period had been suspended by s. 28 (1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (the «CPA»), which provides that «any limitation period applicable to a cause of action
asserted in a class proceeding is suspended in favour of a class member on the commencement of the class proceeding».
Traditional procedural tools are
available in a class proceeding, including a motion to strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or motions to determine issues of law or for summary judgment to both eliminate and narrow claims.
While accepting that the opt - out process can be a mechanism for parties to express disapproval of the class action or to pursue other methods of problem - solving, [18] Justice Strathy emphasized that the opt - out
process in a class proceeding must be fair and free of coercion.
In a class proceeding, one plaintiff class consisted of patients testing negative for the disease, but alleging psychological injury from being informed they might be infected.
Justice Lauwers» decision highlights some of the difficulties associated with asserting individualized causes of action in the IA - client context as «common issues»
in a class proceeding.