Class actions in Canada are continuing to evolve, adapt and improve as the number of claims continues to rise. But challenges, including jurisdictional differences and outdated funding models, remain.
It is a boom time for class actions in Canada, with the three most active jurisdictions being Ontario, Québec and British Columbia. While the system has witnessed several key changes and improvements in recent years, it also faces challenges regarding multi-provincial coordination, widely differing regional certification standards, and claimant-side hurdles in proving actual harm.
In 2020, Ontario reformed its class action law, including raising the bar for certification by introducing strict predominance and superiority requirements, whereas British Columbia and Québec maintain lower barriers to entry. As such, choosing the right province has become a tactical challenge for lawyers navigating these split standards.
In Canada, where legislative powers are constitutionally decided between the federal and provincial governments, all jurisdictions allow class actions, predominantly on an opt-out basis governed by provincial legislation, such as Ontario’s 1992 Class Proceedings Act and Québec’s Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), and for claims within federal jurisdiction, the Federal Courts Rules. Before a class action can proceed, it must be certified (or ‘authorised’ in Québec) by the court, which screens for an identifiable class, common issues and a suitable representative claimant, among other criteria.
One of the most active
“Canada is one of the most active class action jurisdictions in the world,” says Ontario-based partner David Sterns, who specialises in multi-party and class proceedings at law firm Sotos. Over 200 new
class actions were filed in 2025, marking an 11% increase year-on-year, he adds: “Québec alone accounts for nearly half of all filings, in part because it has a lower threshold for authorisation. The law of certification is now well-settled, and this provides more certainty for lawyers looking to bring cases.”
Québec-based INF founding partner Marianne Ignacz, who has extensive experience in class-action litigation, explains that unlike the rest of Canada, which uses a legal system based on English common law, Québec operates under a civil law system. “The number of class actions in Québec has risen steadily over the past few years. The most recent cases filed in [this jurisdiction] have included consumer protection claims based on the Québec Consumer Protection Act, privacy and data breach claims, environmental claims, and institutional abuse (sexual abuse) claims.”
Emerging areas
AI, privacy and technology are emerging areas of class action litigation in Québec, Ignacz adds. Examples include the 2026 proposed proceedings in Paul v OpenAI at the Superior Court of Québec (QCCS), which involves the alleged collection and disclosure of personal information, and the 2025 QCCS proceedings in Thiel v Meta Platforms, which centredon allegations that Meta provided third parties with access to users’ private data without consent.
“Although there are significant PFAS (‘forever chemicals’) claims in the US, there is currently only one ongoing PFAS proposed class action in Québec, the Gonthier v 3M Company matter, against manufacturers, users, distributors and sellers of PFAS [over the alleged] contamination of drinking water sources. We expect to see further PFAS-related claims in other areas as well,” says Ignacz.
While most secondary liability claims are filed in Ontario, several such claims have been brought in Québec in the past few months. In large group or collective actions, adding secondary liability allows claimants to pursue other defendants – such as parent companies, financial institutions and technology platforms – who may share blame alongside the direct perpetrator.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2025 decision in Lundin Mining Corp v Markowich, which clarified when public companies are required to disclose material information, may also encourage further class action filings in Canada, Ignacz suggests, given the court’s broad interpretation of what constitutes a ‘material change’ under the applicable Ontario legislation. Reporting issuers are required to disclose material changes “forthwith” and file a report within 10 days of the change, with a similar requirement existing under the Québec Securities Act.
Commenting on the class action trends in Canada as a whole, Sterns says consumer protection claims are still the most common, but AI cases are on the rise. “We are seeing a number of suits over the use of data to train large language models. Securities filings, by contrast, are on the decline.”
Opened the door
One eagerly watched development is the 2025 amendment to the Competition Act, which opened the door to private actions at the Competition Tribunal over abuse of dominance and monopolisation. “The Act was paused for a year and, since June 2025, private enforcement is now possible,” Sterns comments. “The first case that was brought under this new regime was denied leave by the tribunal. A number of other cases are now waiting on leave. This could herald a new avenue to bring competition cases.”
You shall not pass
Addressing Québec’s lower barriers to entry, Ignacz says the Canada Supreme Court and Québec Court of Appeal have consistently interpreted the threshold criteria to certify a class action in Québec in a very liberal manner. “Despite [this], there have been a number of cases dismissed at the certification stage in the past year. Such examples include De Arburn v Air Canada [2026 QCCS], involving the collection of international passenger service fees, and Karras v Maple Leaf Foods [2025 QCCS], which involved allegations of an anticompetitive price-fixing conspiracy. These decisions were namely dismissed on the grounds that [the claimants] had failed to demonstrate the existence of an arguable case, as required by 575 (2) of the CCP.”
The ‘arguable case’ requirement dictates that the facts alleged by the claimant must appear to justify the conclusions sought under the law.
Although the threshold criteria to certify in Québec remains low, many collective claims continue to be dismissed at the merits stage. Depending on the nature of the claims, determination of causation and loss is often very challenging, Ignacz emphasises. “For example, in the context of a pharmaceutical claim, [the claimant] may seek to establish negligence on a class-wide basis using expert reports. However, individual causation and individual damage may be challenging to establish on a class-wide basis.”
Sterns says Ontario’s introduction of stricter certification standards in 2020 has, so far, “not had a significant impact one way or the other”, adding: “Although there’s been a trend towards filing in other jurisdictions like British Columbia and Québec, which have more lenient tests, Ontario is still the economic centre of Canada and will always have a very active class action docket. The existence of the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund [which provides financial help and cost protection to approved claimants] also ensures that meritorious cases can proceed here regardless of the ‘loser pays’ rule and more stringent certification test.”
The multi-provincial dilemma
Both Sterns and Ignacz note that overlapping multi-jurisdictional class actions continue to present problems.
Sterns explains that most claims are brought in provincial courts on a national basis, which can lead to conflict where the same case is brought in different provinces, sometimes by competing claimant firms. “Within a single province, this is resolved through a carriage motion, where a judge selects which action proceeds. But there is currently no formal regime for resolving conflict between provinces where overlapping national actions are filed. This remains an ongoing challenge.”
Claimants have developed practical ways of muddling through this hurdle, Sterns observes. “Earlier hopes of a legislative fix have faded. Courts have basically told parties that this is just the effective life of working within a concurrent federal-provincial judicial system. The differences in the procedure and rules in each province have led to some ‘arbitrage’ negotiations, where, for example, [claimants] might trade-off certain features like adverse costs in one jurisdiction for a more consolidated approach which defendants tend to prefer,” he states, adding that British Columbia and Ontario have also amended their legislation to account for national classes and conflicting cases.
In Québec, article 577 of the CCP allows a party to obtain the suspension of the class proceeding in Québec in favour of a competing action in another province, Ignacz expounds. “Courts retain significant discretion in granting such applications. The most important criterion to be considered in doing so is the interest of the Québec class members. Applications to suspend class proceedings are
not always granted and it is possible to be faced with two competing actions in two Canadian jurisdictions.”
Notable cases
In February 2026, the Québec Court of Appeal rendered two significant decisions in the matters of Gauthier v Bombardier and Option Consommateurs v Home Depot of Canada. In both cases, the court established that, when deciding whether the claimant has demonstrated an ‘arguable case’ where multiple legal bases are raised, it is sufficient to show the existence of one legal basis that appears to justify the conclusions sought. “The court is therefore not required to consider the other legal bases raised, absent ‘exceptional circumstances’. The Court of Appeal recently reiterated this approach in U-Haul Co. (Canada) ltée v Elbaz,” Ignacz says.
In Gauthier, the claimant sought to represent former Bombardier employees who had participated in a restricted stock unit plan. Among the “conclusions sought” in the proposed action, the claimant sought both compensatory and punitive damages and raised various legal bases. “The [appeal court] disagreed with the methodology followed by the first instance judge – who examined each legal basis raised individually – and held that it was sufficient to conclude that one legal basis appeared to justify the conclusions sought. This approach could potentially lead to ambiguity of the legal bases raised by [the claimant] until the trial, thereby giving rise to broader discovery and debates in respect of weak legal grounds,” Ignacz remarks.
Big changes
When it comes to how the Canada class actions system can be improved to make it more efficient, Ignacz says significant changes in Québec have already occurred due to the 2018 creation of the Class Action Division of the Québec Superior Court in Montreal. “There are currently 13 judges in this division. The creation of this specialised division has reduced delays, promoted efficiency in the handling of class action files, and allowed for greater consistency in decisions. Counsel have also greatly benefited from [this…] due to greater access to judges specialised in class actions and more active case management.”
Out-of-date model
For Sterns, class actions will continue to be an essential tool for achieving access to justice in Canada as the cost of traditional litigation has reached a point where “everyone except the largest corporations are priced out”.
However, he observes that claimant firms are still operating as cottage industries. “We are taking on very large and ambitious class-action cases, but our funding model has not kept pace. In order for [claimants] to continue to bring ambitious cases against infinitely resourced companies like Big Tech, law firm finances will have to evolve.”
Sterns says for cases to be viewed as a credible threat to a large defendant, the economic burden must be shared beyond a few partners in a small or midsize firm. “The practice has matured and the caselaw has developed, but financing remains stuck. Opening the door to more creative financing will allow firms to take on bigger cases and push them through to trial.”
Quarterly Focus:
Political tumult keeps North American lawyers busy
USMCA retreat poses dispute resolution questions
Change and challenge in Canadian class actions
Published by: Dippy Singh
