People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Manage Cookies

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Payments

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Gannon Beaulne

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Partner

Thomas Feore

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Associate

This article explores how courts continue to apply and refine the &ldquo;some basis in fact&rdquo; test for certifying common issues in class actions. Recent decisions illustrate that while expert evidence is not always required, plaintiffs must provide sufficient admissible evidence to support both the existence of common issues and their class-wide resolution. The rulings reinforce certification as a meaningful screening tool and provide guidance on evidentiary expectations going forward.

Some Basis in Fact for the Common Issues

Courts Continue to Apply and Refine the Test

Cheryl M. Woodin

Commercial Litigation & Trial Lawyer

Emrys Davis

 Partner and Class Actions National Practice Group Leader

Kolding Larson

Commercial Transactions Lawyer

The Federal Court dismissed a proposed C$5B class action alleging a nationwide conspiracy to fix generic drug prices, finding no basis in fact and denying certification. The decision underscores the Court&rsquo;s gatekeeping role and confirms that US enforcement actions and generalized market theories are insufficient to support competition claims in Canada without clear, particularized evidence.

Federal Court Dismisses 5 Billion Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Action

Federal Court Dismisses C$5 Billion Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action 

Melanie L. Aitken

Antitrust & Competition Law Advisor

Managing Principal, Bennett Jones (US) LLP

In Martin v. Alphabet, the Competition Tribunal issued its first decision interpreting the new public-interest pathway for private access under section 103.1(7) of the Competition Act. While affirming an intention to broaden access, the Tribunal articulated a flexible but rigorous three-part framework that places real weight on evidence, genuine interest and the applicant&rsquo;s capacity to prosecute complex competition cases. The decision underscores that public interest alone is insufficient without a coherent, Canada-focused evidentiary record and a credible litigation plan.

Martin v Alphabet Tribunal Sets

Martin v. Alphabet: Tribunal Sets the Public Interest Leave Framework—Evidence and Capacity Now the Gatekeepers

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Ciara J. Mackey

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Research and Opinions, National Practice Group Leader

In Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that jurisdiction must be assessed for each defendant individually. A plaintiff cannot rely on one defendant&rsquo;s contract or weak connecting factors to extend jurisdiction to others. The decision strengthens the principles of corporate separateness in cross-border disputes.

The SCC Clarifies Approach to Jurisdiction Against Multiple Defendants in Cross Border Disputes

Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo: The SCC Clarifies Approach to Jurisdiction Against Multiple Defendants in Cross-Border Disputes

Katherine Booth

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The BC Court of Appeal in Cleaver v. The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited upheld the refusal to certify a privacy class action, finding no basis in fact for the claim&rsquo;s central allegation. The decision reinforces the courts&rsquo; gatekeeping role at certification and the importance of evidentiary support for the core allegations underlying a proposed class proceeding.

BC Court of Appeal No basis in fact no class action

BC Court of Appeal: No Basis in Fact = No Class Action 

Michael C. Smith

George W. H. Reid

International Trade, Investment and Public Procurement Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

The Government of Canada has published a new Notice concerning the rules and procedures governing the administration of the quota for imports of electric vehicles from the People's Republic of China for the second period of Quota Year 1 (September 1, 2026 to February 28, 2027). The Notice, issued by Global Affairs Canada under the Export and Import Permits Act, confirms that the second allocation period will continue to operate similar to the first allocation period.&nbsp;

Notice Concerning the Quota for Imports of Chinese Electric Vehicles

Second Allocation Period Opens September 1, 2026

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Kate Kim

Andrew Young

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Issue 43 of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes highlights recent developments in Canadian tax litigation and dispute resolution. This edition examines the limits of the Minister's ability to advance alternative assessment arguments, clarifies who may deduct legal costs incurred in tax disputes, and explores the role of price adjustment clauses in estate freeze transactions

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 43

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: August 2026

Carl Cunningham

Management-side Employment Lawyer

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Julia Horowitz

Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In Wigdor v. Facebook Canada Ltd., 2026 ONCA 572, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that equity-based compensation, including RSUs, may constitute a term or condition of employment that must be preserved during the statutory notice period under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The decision highlights the need for employers to carefully review RSU forfeiture provisions and saving language to ensure compliance with employment standards legislation, while confirming that the threshold for punitive damages remains high.

RSU Forfeiture Revisited Ontario Court of Appeal Provides Important Guidance for Employers

RSU Forfeiture Revisited: Ontario Court of Appeal Provides Important Guidance for Employers

Alison G. FitzGerald

International Arbitration Lawyer

Sabrina A. Bandali

International Trade, Regulatory and Investment Lawyer

Canada has introduced a new round of retaliatory tariffs on $27.6 billion worth of US goods in response to the Trump administration's 50% tariffs on Canadian exports. The measures, effective September 8, 2026, include surtaxes ranging from 15% to 50% on a wide range of products, alongside remission programs and duty relief mechanisms for affected businesses.

Cheryl Woodin and Gannon Beaulne in IADC on Product Liability

From the Same Authors