Our specialized Class Action group is experienced both in prosecuting and defending class proceedings.
Senior partners of Paliare Roland are ranked as “consistently recommended” in the practice area of Class Actions by Lexpert® Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory.
Chambers Global has ranked Paliare Roland as a leading law firm in plaintiff-side class actions, and confirms the firm is recognized for experience in acting for defendants in class actions, as well.
The Class Action group is a team of talented lawyers and support staff. Acting as class counsel on some cases, and as defence counsel on others give the Class Action group unique strategic insight in a practice area where most firms typically represent only one side or the other.
Paliare Roland’s expertise and problem-solving on class actions is consistently recognized by members of the class action bar. In describing the firm, Canadian Lawyer Magazine (naming Paliare Roland as one of its top 10 litigation boutiques for 2012), said:
"One lawyer who lined up against them in a class action said they were formidable opponents. “They fight tooth and nail on the stuff that matters, but there’s no messing around over silly things,” he says."
In appropriate cases, we act as co-counsel, working with other law firms both in Ontario and from other jurisdictions on complex class proceedings.
In cases where we do not act for the parties, our firm has been retained by counsel to assist on particular issues as they arise. In separate cases, we have represented both defence counsel and class counsel.
We are also regularly retained to provide critical insolvency advice on class actions.
Paliare Roland’s Class Action group has successfully resolved cases involving such matters as:
- Breach of Contract
- Competition Law/Price Fixing Conspiracies
- Institutional Abuse
- Payday Lenders and other Criminal Interest Charges
- Pension Fund Allocations
- Product Liability
- Professional Negligence
- Securities Misrepresentation
The Class Action group is currently acting on the following Plaintiff-side proceedings:
- Representative Work
In Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart, the firm represents the interests of the owners of Shoppers Drug Mart franchises in an action alleging that Shoppers Drug Mart has breached the terms of the Associate Agreement as well as its duty of good faith and statutory duty of fair dealing (where applicable) with regards to how it has been operating the franchise system. The case is certified and examinations for discovery have been conducted. Counsel are preparing for trial.
In MacDonald v. BMO, the firm is class counsel to those who held registered accounts with the defendants. The case pertains to foreign exchange fees and unauthorized transactions in those accounts. The case has been certified and examinations for discovery have been completed. Counsel are preparing for trial.
The firm is class counsel on an auditor’s negligence claim in Excalibur v. Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP. The claim was certified by the Court of Appeal and is proceeding to discovery.
The firm is seeking certification of a class proceeding against PayPal entities, in respect of foreign exchange transactions and fees associated with those transactions.
In Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Thyssenkrupp, the firm obtained compensation on behalf of elevator owners whose elevators contained a faulty emergency braking system that had to be replaced at great cost.
The firm was co-counsel for the class in Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank, 2005 CanLII 39888 (Ont. Div. Ct.). Markson is the key class action case cited for certification of claims for aggregate damages, and the use of statistical evidence. It is also widely cited for its explanation of the "preferable procedure" analysis for certification. The action was settled
Our class action group acted as part of the Class counsel team in Mandeville v. Manufacturers Life Insurance, a class action trial that sought compensation for former Barbados Manulife policyholders who were excluded from the benefits of Manulife's demutualization
In Smith v. National Money Mart, 2010 ONSC 1334, the firm acted as class counsel along with lawyers from a number of other firms.
The firm also acted for the plaintiff class in Joseph v. Quik Payday Inc., and Mortillaro v. Cash Money seeking compensation for the criminal rates of interest that the defendant companies were alleged to charge on their “payday loans”. Both actions have been settled.
In Cannon v. Funds for Canada et al., the firm is co-counsel for the Class in a claim brought on behalf of approximately 10,000 participants in the ParkLane Donations for Canada charitable gift program: 2012 ONSC 399. The claim alleges that the program was a fraud and abuse of the charitable giving provisions of the Income Tax Act.
In Currie v. McDonald’s Restaurants, the firm represented Canadian customers of McDonald’s restaurants who alleged that the company had improperly assured that any prizes given out in their promotional games were intentionally diverted away from Canadian customers. The action was settled.
In a pension surplus case, the firm represented the respondent class after ING Canada Inc. brought an application to determine the proper distribution of a surplus realized in the partial wind-up of the Wellington Insurance Company Pension Plan. The matter was settled.
The firm represented the class of 407 Toll Road customers who had been improperly charged a $30 late penalty fee. The matter was settled.
In Vezina v. Loblaws, the firm acted for the class in a suit relating to an employee of Loblaws who was infected with Hepatitis A and who may have caused the infection to spread. The action was settled.
The firm represented the class of individuals who suffered damages arising from a breakdown in provision of Park’N Fly’s valet parking services from its Airport Road, Mississauga location during the busy post-Christmas period during the week of December 26, 2004. This action was settled.
The firm was co-counsel for the class in McKenna v. Gammon Gold et al., 2010 ONSC 1591 and 2011 ONSC 6630 a securities misrepresentation case brought on behalf of both prospectus and secondary market shareholders. The action was settled.