THE ADVOCATE 511
VOL. 79 PART 4 JULY 2021
to putative class members, despite the absence of a formal requirement for
court approval of pre-certification settlements in the province.
ENDNOTES
1. Of the Canadian jurisdictions with class proceedings
legislation, Manitoba and Newfoundland and
Labrador are the only other provinces aside from
British Columbia that lack the requirement for court
approval of settlements before certification. See Class
Proceedings Act, CCSM c C130, ss 1 (sub verbo
“class proceeding”), 35; Class Actions Act, SNL
2001, c C-18.1, ss 2 (sub verbo “class action”), 35.
2. Fantl v Transamerica Life Canada, 2008 CanLII
17304 at para 76 (Ont SC) Fantl, aff’d 2008 Can-
LII 63563 (Ont Div Ct), aff’d 2009 ONCA 377;
Lundy v VIA Rail Canada Inc, 2012 ONSC 4152 at
para 31 Lundy.
3. RSBC 1996, c 50 CPA.
4. Amending the CPA to require court approval of precertification
settlements and discontinuances would
improve consistency in class proceedings jurisprudence
across Canada, increase protection for absent
putative class members and protect the integrity of
the class proceedings regime in this province, as further
discussed in this article.
5. Watt v Health Sciences Association of British Columbia
, 2020 BCSC 280 at para 20, citing Wilson v
Depuy International Ltd, 2018 BCSC 1192 at para
58, Branch J, quoting Cardozo v Becton, Dickinson
and Company, 2005 BCSC 1612 at para. 16.
6. CPA, supra note 3, s 35.
7. Ibid, s 1.
8. See e.g. s 29(1) of Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act,
1992, SO 1992, c 6, which provides that “a proceeding
under this Act may be discontinued or abandoned
only with the approval of the court, on such
terms as the court considers appropriate” emphasis
added; and s 1(2) of that Act, which defines a “proceeding”
as including a proceeding commenced
under the Act “regardless of whether it has been certified
as a class proceeding”. See also ss 35(1)–(2) of
Alberta’s Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c C-16.5,
which provide that “a proceeding that is the subject
of an application for certification” may be settled,
discontinued or abandoned only with the approval
of the court.
9. Gradja v Barrick Gold Corp, 2019 ONSC 4869 at
paras 14–15.
10. Epstein v First Marathon Inc, 2000 CanLII 22797 at
para 31 (Ont SC) Epstein, quoting Michael
Cochrane, Class Actions: A Guide to the Class Proceedings
Act, 1992 (Aurora: Canada Law Book,
1992).
11. Driediger v Ashley Furniture Industries Inc, 2010
SKQB 437 at para 10 Driediger.
12. Logan v Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 CanLII
20308 at paras 11–13 (Ont SC) Logan.
13. Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Class
Actions (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Attorney General,
1982) at 806 Report on Class Actions, online:
<digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/library_olrc/
110/>.
14. Epstein, supra note 10 at para 38, citing the Report
on Class Actions, supra note 13 at 806.
15. Epstein, supra note 10 at para 32, citing the Report
on Class Actions, supra note 13 at 146.
16. See Epstein, supra note 10 at paras 41–52 for a discussion
of the American experience with “strike
suits”, particularly as it relates to securities class
actions.
17. Epstein, supra note 10 at para 42, quoting Steven
Sharpe & James Reid, “Aspects of Class Action Securities
Litigation in the United States” (1997) 28 Can
Bus LJ 348 at 353–54.
18. Supra note 8.
19. Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2010, SA 2010,
c 15 (assented to December 2, 2010).
20. Davey v Canadian National Railway Co, 2006
ABQB 704 at para 5.
21. Driediger, supra note 11 at para 8.
22. Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018, SBC
2018, c 16 (assented to May 17, 2018).
23. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates
(Hansard), 41st Parl, 3rd Sess, No 126 (26 April
2018) at 4283 (Hon D Eby), online: <https://www.
leg.bc.ca/content/hansard/41st3rd/20180426am
-Hansard-n126.pdf>.
24. Warner v Google LLC, 2020 BCSC 1108 at para
108, quoting Fantl, supra note 2 at para 78, quoting
Heron v Guidant Corp, 2007 OJ No 3823 at para
10 (SCJ) Heron, leave to appeal to ref’d 2008 Can-
LII 204 (Ont Div Ct); Rooke v Canada (Health), 2019
FC 765 at para 18.
25. Smith v Crown Life Insurance Co, 2002 CarswellOnt
8437 at paras 17–18 (SCJ) Smith.
26. Singh v RBC Insurance Agency Ltd, 2020 ONSC
5368 at para 41 Singh, citing Fantl, supra note 2
at para 59. See also Driediger, supra note 11 at
para 8. The courts’ inherent jurisdiction extends to
making rules of practice and procedure respecting
class proceedings in the absence of comprehensive
legislation: Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc
v Dutton, 2001 SCC 46 at para 34.
27. Logan, supra note 12 at para 7.
28. Supra note 8.
29. 2015 SCC 60 at paras 60–61, Côté J.
30. 2019 NLSC 193 at paras 8–10.
31. Supra note 1.
32. Ibid, ss 2 (sub verbo “class action”), 35.
33. Smith, supra note 25 at para 29, cited in Baxter v
Lloydminster (City), 2010 SKQB 452 at para 8.
34. Fantl, supra note 2 at para 78. See also de Muelenaere
v Great Gulf Homes Limited, 2015 ONSC
7442 at para 30, citing Heron, supra note 24 at
para 10.
/20180426am
/20180426am-Hansard-n126.pdf
/20180426am-Hansard-n126.pdf
/20180426am-Hansard-n126.pdf
/
/20180426am