Class Actions : 
Looking Forward 2025

We begin with developments of national significance. First, we discuss the amendments to the Competition Act which, effective June 2025, could open the door to a novel quasi-class action scheme entitling private plaintiffs to seek financial remedies from the Competition Tribunal for certain anti-competitive conduct. Then, we reflect on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent hearing of the appeal in Lundin Mining Corporation v Dov Markowich, the result of which may redefine the scope of “material change” under securities law, impacting the nature and frequency of securities class actions in Canada. Finally, we discuss a Supreme Court of Canada decision which paves the way for national multi-Crown class actions in Canada.

Next, we explore notable cases from Ontario and British Columbia that address issues that are relevant Canada-wide. We reflect on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent affirmation of the two-step test for the certification of common issues and how courts (including non-Ontario courts) will need to respond to the corresponding evidentiary requirements of this two-step test. We then revisit the topic of database defendants’ liability¹—an issue previously laid to rest in the context of Ontario’s common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion but newly revived by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, pursuant to the statutory-equivalent tort codified in provincial privacy legislation.

Finally, we highlight Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia decisions which show the courts narrowing or streamlining class actions cases where possible. Here, we begin with two decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the court’s appetite to dismiss languishing class actions on account of delay. We then turn to another Ontario Court of Appeal holding that plaintiffs’ need to show compensable loss to certify tort claims, before discussing the Quebec Court of Appeal’s encouragement to authorization judges to dispose of meritless claims against defendants early in the litigation. In our final piece, we conclude with two British Columbia Supreme Court decisions demonstrating the courts’ willingness to meaningfully engage with—and even reject, where appropriate—expert methodology providing some basis in fact for causation at certification.

Bennett Jones' Class Actions Litigation Group

Bennett Jones’ Class Action Litigation group continues to achieve successes for its clients, including in high-stakes, complex cases across a range of issues, including product liability, competition, securities litigation and privacy. Bennett Jones was awarded Class Action Law Firm of the Year in 2024 by Chambers Canada, and the firm’s class actions group remains highly ranked for dispute resolution by Chambers Canada, Chambers Global, the Legal 500 Canada and the Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory. Our practice group members continue to be recognized leaders, with our co-chairs Michael A. Eizenga and Emrys Davis having won Benchmark’s Class Action Litigator of the Year six times and Benchmark’s Competition Litigator of the Year in 2023 respectively. The Co-Chair of our National Litigation Practice, Cheryl Woodin, was also named Benchmark’s Class Action Litigator of the Year in 2024.

¹See Nina Butz and Mehak Kawatra, “Judicial Economy, Access to Justice and Certainty in the Law: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Denial of Leave to Appeal in the Intrusion Upon Seclusion Trilogy” in Bennett Jones LLP, Class Actions: Looking Forward 2024.