604-682-3771

CLASS ACTIONS

Advocating for Justice

RPLE Law is committed to achieving justice for our clients through class actions and individual mass tort lawsuits. Let us show you how.

When Negligence Changes Lives

Class actions leverage strength in numbers to permit individuals to take on large corporations, institutions, and governments. 

Rice Parsons Leoni & Elliott LLP is one of British Columbia’s leading class action law firms.  We have the depth of experience to pursue complex cases including consumer protection, data privacy rights, environmental contamination and pharmaceutical and medical device claims.  Most of our actions are national in scope.  

We have obtained justice for people harmed by wrongdoing and recovered millions of dollars for class members. 

View our list of class actions to provide you with information on our current cases

CLASS ACTIONS

Accelerated Parole Review (“APR”)

AFFF Class Action

Alesse 21 and 28 Birth Control

Allergan Breast Implants

Apple Artificial Intelligence Copyright Infringement

CRA Privacy Breach

CSC Indigenous Corrections

Depo Provera Tumour

E-Cigarette Mass Tort Lawsuit

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) Tigershark Engine Excess Oil Consumption

Flo Fertility App

Humboldt Broncos Bus Crash

ICBC Privacy Breach

Jeep 4XE Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Battery Defect

JUUL E-Cigarettes

Kent Lockdown

Lapu-Lapu Festival

Mentor Breast Implants

Meta (Facebook and Instagram) Mental Injury

Necrotizing Enterocolitis “NEC”

Philips CPAP

PIEPS/Black Diamond Avalanche Beacon

TikTok Data Privacy Violation

TikTok Mental Injury 

Zonnic 

Class Actions FAQ's

The following frequently asked questions are intended to provide general legal information about class action proceedings in Canada, with particular reference to practice in British Columbia. This information does not constitute legal advice. Persons seeking advice in respect of a specific matter are encouraged to contact our office directly.

What Is a Class Action?

A class action is a procedural mechanism that permits one or more individuals — referred to as representative plaintiffs — to prosecute claims on behalf of a larger group of persons who have suffered similar harm arising from the same or related conduct. Rather than requiring each affected person to commence and maintain separate proceedings, the claims are consolidated into a single action. This serves the dual purpose of providing access to justice for individuals whose claims may be too small to litigate economically on their own, and of promoting judicial economy by resolving common issues in a single proceeding.

Any person who falls within the class definition certified by the court is a class member. The class definition is established at the certification stage and is typically delineated by reference to criteria such as the relevant time period, the nature of the product, service, or conduct at issue, and in some cases geographic location. Subject to the right to opt out discussed below, class membership is automatic — no affirmative step is required to join the proceeding.

Class actions in Canada have been employed across a broad range of subject matters, including but not limited to: product liability and pharmaceutical litigation; data breaches and privacy violations; price-fixing and other Competition Act contraventions; environmental contamination; consumer protection claims arising from misleading representations or deceptive practices; employment matters involving systemic wage theft or discriminatory practices; and securities fraud. The common thread is conduct that has caused harm, on a similar basis, to a sufficiently large number of persons.

Joining a Class Action

In British Columbia and most other Canadian provinces, class proceedings operate on an opt-out basis. A person who falls within the certified class definition is automatically a class member and will be bound by any judgment or court-approved settlement unless they elect to opt out within the period prescribed by the court. No registration, retainer agreement, or other affirmative step is required to participate.

Class members are not required to contribute to the costs of the litigation. Counsel for the representative plaintiff typically act on a contingency fee basis, meaning their fees are contingent upon a successful outcome. Any fees and disbursements payable to class counsel are subject to court approval and are paid from the proceeds of any settlement or judgment before distribution to class members. Class members who remain in the proceeding do not bear personal exposure to the defendant's costs in the event the action is unsuccessful.

By remaining a class member, a person's individual claims against the defendant in respect of the subject matter of the class action are subsumed within the collective proceeding. The individual will be entitled to share in any monetary relief obtained for the class, subject to any individual assessment process that may be required. Correspondingly, the outcome of the proceeding — whether a settlement, a judgment, or a dismissal — will be binding upon that individual, and they will generally be precluded from commencing separate proceedings against the defendant for the same claims.

Certification

Certification is the judicial determination that a proceeding may be maintained as a class action. It is a procedural gateway — not a ruling on the merits of the underlying claims — and is one of the most consequential stages of any class proceeding. A successful certification motion confirms that the matter may proceed on behalf of the proposed class and typically results in court-ordered notice being disseminated to class members. Certification is vigorously contested in most significant class actions, and the outcome materially affects the leverage and trajectory of the litigation.

Under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, a court must certify a proceeding as a class action if the following criteria are established: (1) the pleadings disclose a cause of action; (2) there is an identifiable class of two or more persons; (3) the claims of the class members raise common issues; (4) a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues; and (5) there is a representative plaintiff who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, has produced a workable litigation plan, and does not have an interest that is in conflict with the interests of other class members. Comparable criteria apply under the class proceedings legislation of other provinces.

If the court declines to certify the proceeding as a class action, the matter cannot proceed on a collective basis. Individual class members who wish to pursue their claims would be required to commence their own separate proceedings, subject to applicable limitation periods. The representative plaintiff's individual claim may continue as a standalone action. A refusal to certify does not constitute a determination that the underlying claims lack merit; it reflects a judicial conclusion that the class proceeding format is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for the claims as pleaded.

Common Issues and Commonality

Common issues are questions of law or fact that are central to the claims of the class members and are capable of being resolved collectively in a single proceeding. They need not be determinative of every aspect of each class member's claim — it is sufficient that their resolution would advance the litigation as a whole. Common issues are identified and approved by the court at the certification stage and form the foundation of the common issues trial, if the matter proceeds to judgment. Commonality is the analytical core of the certification inquiry. The existence of genuine common issues is what distinguishes a true class action from a collection of individual claims that merely share a factual background, and courts scrutinize proposed common issues carefully to ensure they are genuinely common rather than superficially similar.

Yes. The existence of individual issues does not preclude certification, provided the common issues are genuine and their resolution would meaningfully advance the litigation. Class proceedings legislation expressly contemplates a bifurcated process in which common issues are resolved collectively, with individual issues — including, where applicable, individual damages assessments — addressed separately thereafter. Courts have certified proceedings in which significant individual inquiries were anticipated, provided the common issues justified collective treatment.

Following a determination of the common issues — whether by judgment after trial or by court-approved settlement — individual class members who wish to advance claims for individual relief are typically required to participate in a claims process administered by a court-appointed claims administrator. In some proceedings, individual damages may be assessed by reference to a formula or schedule approved by the court, without requiring a separate hearing for each class member. The specific procedure varies depending on the nature of the claims and the terms of the applicable court order or settlement agreement.

Carriage of a Class Action

Carriage refers to the right and responsibility to conduct and control a class action proceeding on behalf of the proposed class. When multiple law firms commence competing class action proceedings arising from the same events or conduct — a common occurrence in high-profile or novel cases — a court must resolve which proceeding will advance and which legal team will have carriage of the litigation. The firm awarded carriage assumes full responsibility for the strategy, conduct, and resolution of the proceeding, including any settlement negotiations, subject to its obligations to the class and the court.

Courts assess carriage disputes by reference to the best interests of the class as a whole. Relevant factors include: the relative state of preparation of each proposed proceeding; the breadth and quality of the proposed class definition; the theories of liability advanced; the litigation plans proposed by each firm; the experience, resources, and track record of the competing legal teams; the nature and identity of the proposed representative plaintiffs; and the overall likelihood that each proceeding would achieve a fair, efficient, and expeditious resolution for class members. Priority of filing is not determinative.

Once carriage is awarded to one proceeding, the competing actions are typically stayed or dismissed. Class members who were associated with the non-carriage proceedings are not prejudiced — they automatically become class members in the proceeding that has been awarded carriage, subject to the applicable certification order and opt-out rights.

Opting Out

Opting out is the mechanism by which a class member formally excludes themselves from a class proceeding. A person who opts out is no longer a class member, will not be entitled to share in any relief obtained on behalf of the class, and will not be bound by any judgment or settlement. In exchange, the person retains the right to pursue their individual claims against the defendant independently. The decision to opt out is irrevocable once the opt-out period has closed and should be made only after careful consideration, preferably with the benefit of independent legal advice.

Opting out may merit consideration where: the class member's individual damages are substantially greater than the anticipated per-capita recovery available through the class proceeding; the class member has already retained independent counsel and commenced individual proceedings; the class member's factual circumstances differ materially from those of the broader class in a way that renders collective treatment disadvantageous; or the class member has a specific strategic or commercial reason to resolve their claims independently. In all cases, legal advice should be obtained before any opt-out election is made.

The opt-out procedure is prescribed by the court's certification order and communicated to class members through the court-approved notice. Typically, a class member wishing to opt out must deliver a written election — in the form specified in the notice — to the claims administrator within the deadline established by the court. Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is necessary for the opt-out to be effective. A class member who fails to deliver a valid opt-out election within the prescribed period remains a class member and will be bound by the outcome of the proceeding. Courts have discretion to extend opt-out deadlines in exceptional circumstances, but such relief is rarely granted. Class members who are considering opting out should act promptly upon receipt of the class action notice.

Settlement and Distribution

Any settlement of a certified class action in Canada is subject to court approval before it has any binding effect. The court exercises a protective function on behalf of absent class members and will approve a settlement only if satisfied that its terms are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class as a whole. The court will review the proposed settlement, consider any objections filed by class members, receive submissions from class counsel and the defendant, and may hear evidence before rendering its determination.

The distribution of settlement proceeds is governed by a plan of distribution approved by the court. The plan sets out the methodology for allocating funds among eligible class members, which may be based on a fixed per-capita amount, a formula reflective of individual harm or usage, or some other equitable basis. Prior to distribution, court-approved legal fees, disbursements, and claims administration costs are deducted from the settlement fund. Class members are typically required to submit a claim form within a specified period to establish their eligibility and the quantum of their individual claim.

Where settlement funds remain unclaimed following the close of the claims period, the disposition of the residual funds is addressed in the plan of distribution or by further court order. In many cases, residual funds are distributed on a cy-près basis to one or more charitable organizations or public interest entities whose mandate is reasonably related to the subject matter of the litigation, or are redistributed pro-rata among eligible claimants.

Co-Counsel Arrangements and Claims Administration

In certain class action proceedings — particularly those involving claims arising in multiple provinces or requiring specialized expertise — class counsel may enter into a formal co-counsel or partnering arrangement with one or more other law firms. Under such an arrangement, the firms collaborate in the prosecution of the litigation, with responsibilities allocated by agreement and subject to the oversight of the court. Co-counsel arrangements are subject to disclosure to the court and to the class, and any fee-sharing between co-counsel firms must be approved as part of the overall legal fees approval process.

A claims administrator is an independent third-party organization appointed by the court to manage the claims process following certification or settlement. The claims administrator is responsible for: disseminating notice to class members in accordance with the court-approved notice plan; receiving, reviewing, and adjudicating claims submitted by class members; communicating with class members regarding the status of their claims; and distributing approved settlement or judgment proceeds to eligible claimants. The claims administrator operates under the supervision of the court and reports on the progress and outcome of the claims process.

In certain proceedings, Rice Parsons Leoni & Elliott LLP partners with an experienced claims administration firm to manage the post-certification or post-settlement claims process on behalf of the class. In these circumstances, our firm works closely with the appointed claims administrator to ensure the claims process is conducted efficiently, transparently, and in strict accordance with the terms of the court's order and the approved plan of distribution. We facilitate timely communication with class members, assist in resolving disputes regarding claim eligibility, and ensure distributions are made accurately and without undue delay. Class members are encouraged to contact our office if they have questions or concerns regarding the status of their claims at any stage of the process.

Class members who dispute a determination made by the claims administrator — whether regarding eligibility, the quantum allowed, or any other matter — typically have the right to seek a review of that determination. The review procedure is prescribed by the court's order and described in the communications issued by the claims administrator. In most cases, the first step is an internal review or appeal within the claims administration process. If the dispute is not resolved at that stage, the class member may apply to the court for a determination. Class counsel are available to assist class members in understanding and navigating the review process. Class members are encouraged to contact our office if they have questions or concerns regarding the status of their claims at any stage of the process.

CLASS ACTION JUDGMENTS

Federal Court of Canada
RHE Lawyers Successful in obtaining Certification in the Federal Court on CRA Privacy Breach Class Action

On August 25, 2022 the Federal Court granted the Plaintiff’s certification application in the CRA/CERB privacy breach class action.  RHE lawyers Tony Leoni and Matthew Burtini argued the certification hearing, which concerned unauthorized of a number of Government of Canada online portals in 2020.  The Plaintiff’s allegation was that due to operational failures by the...

Read More >
RHE Lawyers and Siskinds LLP successful in establishing BC Court has jurisdiction against Big Tobacco Defendant in JUUL e-Cigarette Class Proceeding

Together with co-counsel at Siskinds LLP, RHE lawyers Tony Leoni and Jesse Kendall recently obtained a dismissal of the Defendant Altria’s application to dismiss the proceedings against it in the JUUL e-cigarette class action. Altria, an American corporation, applied for an order dismissing the proceedings against it on the basis that BC courts do not...

Read More >
Consortium of Rochon Genova, Thomson Rogers and RHE successful in contested certification for Allergan Silicone Implants and Breast Implant Illness

On December 21, 2022, Justice Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court granted certification of an expanded class proceeding on behalf of all persons who, between May 31, 1999, and May 29, 2019, were implanted in Canada with one or more Biocell textured breast implants and/or silicone breast implants manufactured by Allergan. The Plaintiffs allege that...

Read More >

Rice Parsons Leoni & Elliott LLP

Linkedin Instagram Facebook-f Twitter
Menu
Get In Touch

© 2026 All Rights Reserved. DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this site should not be treated as a substitute for legal counsel.