The Class Proceedings Act, 1992, has been in force since Jan. 1, 1993. In those 20-plus years, Ontario has had a handful of class actions reach the trial stage each year. Ontario’s experience is typical of other common law jurisdictions that have also had few class actions proceed to a common issues trial, but stands in contrast to Quebec’s experience, where class action trials have become the norm.
The common issues on which a judgment is rendered will not necessarily be the same common issues that were certified. Changes are often made to the common issues list as a result of matters that arise during discoveries as well as other stages of the action, even as late as the last days of a common issues trial.
In 2004’s
Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General), the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the need to accommodate amendments, stating: “. . . the Act provides for flexibility and adjustment
at all stages of the proceeding . . . any potential efficiency in advancement of their claims through the flexibility provided by the Act should, where reasonable, be utilized.”
Jurisdiction for courts to amend common issues arises from both the CPA and Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the CPA, s. 8(3) provides the court with jurisdiction to amend certification orders. In addition, s. 12 provides that on the motion of a party or class member, the court has jurisdiction to make any order it considers appropriate regarding the conduct of the proceeding in order to ensure its fair and expeditious determination.
Finally, since the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to class proceedings, Rule 26.01 regarding amendments to pleadings also applies. The rule provides that a court shall grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of an action unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.
In recognizing that, under Regulation 194 of the Rules, “certification is a fluid, flexible procedural process,” courts have allowed amendments that are relevant to the action, flow logically from the existing certification order, and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the action. These amendments can occur at various stages of the proceedings, even towards the end of the common issues trial.
In
Smith v. Inco, the plaintiffs brought a motion to amend the common issues during the last days of the common issues trial. The motion was contested and the defendants also brought a cross-motion requesting another common issue to also be added. Justice J.R. Henderson granted both motions and the common issues list was amended to clarify semantic confusion and to reflect what had actually been argued at trial.
Both s. 12 of the CPA and Rule 26.01 were recently considered in
Andersen v. St. Jude Medical Inc. In the late justice Joan Lax’s decision allowing the plaintiffs to amend the fresh statement of claim and the certification order to include waiver of tort issues, she dismissed the defendant’s arguments the amendments were late, fundamentally changed the action, and were prejudicial.
So long as amendments are relevant to the action, flow logically from the existing certification order, and do not fundamentally alter the nature of the action, the CPA and courts have recognized the complex nature of class actions and have allowed amendments to be made at various stages of the action.
Common issues trials also allow for aggregate assessments. Where no individual issues remain other than assessment of monetary relief, CPA s. 24 permits an aggregate assessment of monetary relief for the benefit of the entire class to be included in the relief granted.
The purpose of the section is to prevent inefficient and impractical individual proceedings in order to determine class members’ losses where the amounts can be more reasonably and fairly determined as a common question.
Where a court determines that individual claims need to be made in order to give effect to an order under s. 24(1), the CPA provides for the determination of individual claims with emphasis on minimizing the burden placed on class members. To accomplish this, s. 24(6) authorizes the court to make individual claim determinations through the use of standardized proof of claim forms, affidavit evidence as to damages, or auditing of claims on a sample or other basis.
In addition, the act expressly provides the court with the power to admit as evidence statistical information that would not otherwise be admissible in determining the appropriate aggregate award.
Section 23(3) further provides that statistical information may be admitted as evidence if notice is provided and the opposing party is provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the expert that supports the evidence.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has stated a finding of (i) liability and (ii) an entitlement to a remedy are sufficient to trigger the application of ss. 23 and 24 of the act.
In
Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank, a case involving illegal interests being charged for cash transactions on credit cards, Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Marc Rosenberg recognized the difficulty faced in assessing individual damages and approved the use of aggregate damages. In addition, as a result of the recordkeeping of the bank, the number of accounts and the small amount of damages owed to the class members, the court in
Markson awarded an aggregate sum to class members even though it meant some class members who did not actually suffer damages shared in the award.
In his reasons for the decision, Rosenberg stated it “is exactly the result contemplated by s. 24(2) and (3) because ‘it would be impractical or inefficient to identify the class members entitled to share in the award.’”
The Court of Appeal’s approach to aggregate assessment of damages from
Markson was followed in
Cassano v. Toronto-Dominion Bank. In that case, Chief Justice Warren Winkler endorsed an aggregate assessment of damages award after rejecting the defendant’s argument that the cost to determine each class member’s damages would be enormous and would exceed the individual recovery amount.
The use of aggregate assessment of damages has also been approved by the Supreme Court of Canada. In
St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v. Barrette, the Supreme Court approved a Quebec trial judge’s award of environmental damages based on the class members’ location within geographic zones.
The availability of aggregate damages in common issues trials provides an additional means of ensuring the underlying goals of the Class Proceedings Act in promoting behaviour modification and access to justice are met and should be utilized whenever practical.
