Multi-Crown class actions are a novel solution for governments seeking to hold multi-jurisdictional defendants to account for harms on a national scale. Late last year, in Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia (“Sanis Health”), the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the constitutionality of this model. Justice Karakatsanis’ majority opinion also reaches beyond the multi-Crown class action model, delivering the Supreme Court’s first comprehensive endorsement of the broader national class action model that – until now – had developed across Canada largely without the Supreme Court’s national oversight.

British Columbia’s Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

In August 2018, British Columbia launched a class action lawsuit against opioid drug manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors, alleging that their marketing practices had contributed to the opioid addiction epidemic and harmed the public healthcare system. Later that year, B.C. enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (“ORA”). Like its precursor tobacco cost recovery legislation, the ORA creates a direct cause of action allowing the B.C. government to sue opioid makers and distributors to recover added health care costs and other damages created by the opioid addiction crisis. Such a legislative mechanism for cost recovery was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco (“Imperial Tobacco”).

Summary

Quantz v. Ontario is a key decision, arising from an accidental disclosure of Ontario Disability Support Program client information, that will have an influence on future privacy class actions. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed this certification motion and described important limitations on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court emphasized that the tort requires a deliberate invasion of privacy and clear evidence of wrongdoing, rather than an accidental leak. This decision is consistent with recent Court of Appeal cases, such as Owsianik v. Equifax Canada and Del Giudice v. Thompson, by which the court restricted the scope of liability for privacy breaches.

Background

On December 20, 2018, an ODSP case worker emailed a spreadsheet containing approximately 45,000 ODSP client names, emails addresses, and ODSP identification numbers to all Ministry case workers. That email was not an improper disclosure of confidential data, as the recipient case workers would already have had access to this information. However, one of the case workers then forwarded the email with the spreadsheet to 103 ODSP clients.

The plaintiff, who was one of the individuals listed on the spreadsheet, claimed that the disclosure of the spreadsheet to the 103 clients identified those ODSP clients thereby stigmatizing them, and impaired their privacy rights as the files contained confidential medical and financial information. The plaintiff asserted several causes of action including intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, breach of confidence, and publication of private facts. The defendant argued that no actionable tort occurred, that the email was sent without willful intent, and that there was no harm or loss. The plaintiff did not allege harm other than anxiety caused by learning of the email.

When does the inadvertent disclosure of solicitor-client communications constitute a waiver of privilege? What can you do to prevent inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents and, if (when) it happens, preserve privilege despite the disclosure?

Tension between rules of evidence and the law of privilege

The rules of evidence minimize the risk that a trier of fact relies on untrustworthy evidence. In contrast, the law of privilege prevents a trier of fact from reviewing trustworthy evidence, but only when the disclosure of such evidence would trench on the public interest in preserving relationships underpinned by confidentiality (e.g., the solicitor-client relationship).

I. Introduction

What counts as a "material change" in a company's "business, operations, or capital" and when must it be disclosed? The answer isn't always clear, and that very question lies at the heart of Lundin Mining, a case that was dismissed, appealed, and went before the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") on January 15, 2025. The anticipated decision, which has yet to be released, could result in a material change to disclosure obligations of public companies.

II. Background

Lundin Mining centers on allegations that Lundin Mining Corporation ("Lundin") failed to promptly disclose significant operational issues at its mine in Chile; namely, a pit wall instability, which arises when the sides of an open pit mine become weak or start to move, and frequently results in a rockslide.

The Canadian Competition Act has seen a whirlwind of changes over the past three years. One major change to the Act is the expansion of remedies available to private parties through Competition Tribunal litigation, as well as an adjustment to the test by which private parties may seek leave to bring Tribunal applications. Specifically, in addition to the ability to order increased administrative monetary penalties, or (“AMPs”) - now up to 3% of worldwide turnover - the Tribunal will soon (as of June 2025) have the ability to order payments directly to those injured by reviewable conduct. The type of actions which may be challenged by private parties has also recently expanded to include abuse of dominant market position, and the test for private parties to obtain leave from the Tribunal to bring cases has been adjusted to make obtaining leave somewhat easier. The combination of these changes adds to the risks associated with allegations of abuse of dominance, as well as to the likelihood of challenges by those affected, in addition to government challenges.

In the realm of wills and estates, solicitors’ negligence claims often focus on estate planning and the execution of testamentary instruments and the corresponding standard of care. However, such claims can also arise from estate litigation and even the settlement of estate claims. This danger is aptly demonstrated by Wiener v. Strickland, a recent solicitor’s negligence case in which a client alleged that his former lawyer did not follow his instructions during estate mediation. Inspired by the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, this article focuses on minimizing the risk of negligence claims arising from assisting clients in the settlement of estates disputes. First, the article reviews the test for solicitor’s negligence applicable to settlements; then it identifies some precautions that lawyers can take when assisting clients with the settlement of estate litigation, to minimize the risk of future negligence claims.

INTRODUCTION

Ontario has been privy to franchise specific legislation for well over 20 years now. The Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 imposes an obligation on a franchisor to deliver to a prospective franchisee a disclosure document (an “FDD”) which complies with the Wishart Act and the regulations made thereunder. As consumer protection legislation, the Wishart Act, and franchise legislation in other provinces, is designed to afford prospective franchisees the information they need to make an informed investment decision. 

As an incentive to franchisors to comply with their obligation to deliver an FDD, the Wishart Act allows a franchisee to rescind a franchise agreement: (a) within 60 days after receiving the FDD where a franchisor failed to provide an FDD or statement of material change within set timeframes, or where the contents of the FDD fail to meet the requirements set forth in the Wishart Act; and (b) within two (2) years of the signing of the franchise agreement if the FDD was never delivered, or if the FDD was so incomplete that it was deemed to constitute non-delivery.

The market for preconstruction condominiums and newly built homes remains under pressure. Rising interest rates and a volatile bond market have driven mortgage costs upwards and appraisals downward, leaving purchasers in tough waters. Purchasers of new builds are contractually bound—having paid deposits and committed to purchase prices set in a different economic climate. For some, higher interest rates prevent them from securing sufficient financing to close. Others face personal hardships or were misinformed about the transaction process. Regardless of the reason, the fallout from failing to close can be severe: deposits may be forfeited, and damages claims can exceed what buyers ever imagined. Unfortunately, many purchasers who failed to close in 2023 and 2024 are now being served with court actions naming them as Defendants and, in a lot of cases, bankruptcy is the only option.

It has been approximately a year since we last wrote on this topic. In this article, we build on our previous discussion by providing updates on two critical legal developments for preconstruction buyers: the evolving use of relief from forfeiture and the emerging "improvident sale" argument in damages claims. These updates, grounded in recent case law, may serve as precedents for arguments we may see considered in this new wave of failed transaction actions.

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2024 delivered an important decision in the area of regulatory prosecutions in the case of R. v. Greater Sudbury (City). This appeal arose from a fatal accident and concerned the proper interpretation of Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1 (“Act”).

The Corporation of the City of Greater Sudbury contracted with Interpaving Limited to act as constructor to repair a downtown water main. An Interpaving employee tragically struck and killed a pedestrian when driving a road grader, in reverse, through an intersection.  Contrary to the accompanying regulation, Construction Projects, O. Reg. 213/91 ("Regulation"), no fence was placed between the construction project workplace and the public intersection, and no signaller was assisting the Interpaving worker (see ss. 65 and 104(3)). In separate proceedings, Interpaving was tried and convicted for breaching the duty of employers under s. 25(1)(c) of the Act to "ensure that ... the measures and procedures prescribed [in the Regulation] are carried out in the workplace".

Legal fees measured by time dockets are a fundamental aspect of the lawyer-client relationship. However, they are not just a private matter between a lawyer and a client - they are also subject to audit by the court.

In Ontario, the court retains a supervisory jurisdiction over legal fees, and this role extends beyond mere mathematical calculations of time and hourly rates. The court ensures that legal services are billed fairly, in accordance with the principles under the Solicitors Act.

The decision in Belyavsky v. Monkhouse Law, 2024 ONSC 4970 illustrates that lawyers must be extra careful when docketing their time on a case.