• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Energy Infrastructure Mining Private Equity & Investment Funds View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events Subscribe
Arbitration Angle Artificial Intelligence Insights Business Law Talks Podcast Class Actions: Looking Forward Class Action Quick Takes
Economic Outlook New Energy Economy Series Quarterly Fintech Insights Quarterly M&A Insights Sustainability & the CIO
People
Offices
About
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Law Students
Alumni
Payments
Search
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

Ontario Superior Court Reminds Plaintiffs’ Counsel that Class Actions Notices Are Not Vehicles For Recruitment

February 04, 2025

Written By Ethan Schiff and Julien Sicco

Stay Up-To-Date

Read the most recent Class Action Quick Takes and stay informed with the latest key developments, trends and strategies in the class action arena by subscribing to receive future insights.

Read the latest
Subscribe

Pugliese v Chartwell, 2024 ONSC 7146 (Chartwell) explores the limitations of notice provisions under class proceedings legislation. Justice Morgan refused to authorize a notice plan providing for direct notice to proposed class members advising of a discontinuance after certification was refused. In doing so, Justice Morgan distinguished notice to class members whose claims had been certified from notice to putative class members for whom certification was refused. Justice Morgan also emphasized that notices should not be used to recruit new representative plaintiffs or to advertise for class counsel.

Chartwell followed Pugliese v Chartwell, 2024 ONSC 1135, in which plaintiffs sought to certify eight proposed class actions on behalf of individuals infected with COVID-19 in Ontario long term care homes. Justice Morgan certified some of the proposed class actions. He also refused to certify two actions, which he authorized to be discontinued without prejudice to them later being reconstituted. Certification was refused because no representative plaintiffs had a cause of action against certain of the defendants.

After the certification decision, class counsel proposed a notice plan providing for indirect notice (i.e., notice published in media) for class members whose claims had been certified and direct notice (i.e., personally delivered notice) for putative class members whose claims were being discontinued. The direct notice would have requested that individuals contact class counsel if interested in making a new claim.

Justice Morgan approved an alternative notice plan that required only indirect notice. He held that class members whose claims had not been certified had lost the right to require notice that would impose a significant burden on the defendants. Justice Morgan also held that the direct notices as requested by class counsel were an impermissible attempt to recruit representative plaintiffs.

Have time to read more?

  • The proposed direct notice would have required the defendants to specifically identify contact information for residents, visitors and family members who contracted COVID-19. Justice Morgan accepted that such information was either “not available or only available through great expenditure of time and effort”.
  • Justice Morgan directed that the plaintiffs bear 100 percent of the costs of implementing the notice plan in the two proposed class actions that were authorized to be discontinued, and 75 percent of the costs of implementing the notice plan in the remaining actions.
  • The general principles of notice include, among other things, that sufficient steps be taken to provide adequate notice (which considers the number of class members, their places of residence and the cost of giving notice). Actual notice to any particular class member is not required (see 3113736 Canada Ltd v Cozy Corner Bedding Inc, 2020 ONCA 235 and Johnson v Ontario, 2022 ONCA 725).

Please note that this publication presents an overview of notable legal trends and related updates. It is intended for informational purposes and not as a replacement for detailed legal advice. If you need guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact one of the authors to explore how we can help you navigate your legal needs.

For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com.

Download PDF

Authors

  • Ethan Z. Schiff Ethan Z. Schiff, Partner
  • Julien  Sicco Julien Sicco, Associate

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

BC Government Streamlines Renewable Energy Regulatory [...]

May 09, 2025
       

Blog

BBHIC 2025: Key Insights From Canada’s Leading Healthcare [...]

May 08, 2025
       

Blog

Upending the Ground Rules: Proposed Major Overhaul [...]

May 08, 2025
       

Blog

Government of Alberta Proposes Significant Changes [...]

May 06, 2025
       

Blog

What Does the SPAC IPO Rebound Mean for Cross-Border Deals?

May 05, 2025
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2025. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones