People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

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

Maisah Syed

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has certified a class action against the manufacturer of a stolen handgun used to carry out the 2018 mass shooting on Danforth Avenue in Toronto, reversing in part the motion judge’s decision below.

Court of Appeal Certifies Negligence Claim Against Gun Manufacturer for Mass Shooting

Emrys Davis

Competition & Antitrust Litigation Lawyer

Michael A. Eizenga L.S.M.

Leading Canadian Class Action Litigator

Partner 

In our 2025 edition of Looking Forward, we review notable class action developments from the past year and consider what recent trends in the law might tell us about what to expect in the years ahead.

Class Actions Looking Forward 2025

Class Actions: Looking Forward 2025

Edward W. Hulshof

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has endorsed the constitutionality of British Columbia (BC) legislation empowering the province to seek recovery of opioid epidemic healthcare costs in a proposed class action brought on behalf of multiple Canadian governments.
In Sanis Health Inc v British Columbia, <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc40/2024scc40.html" target="_blank">2024 SCC 40</a>, a majority of the SCC held that constitutional territorial limits on provincial legislative competence did not prevent BC from creating a direct statutory cause of action that it can pursue in a proposed class action on behalf of the federal and other provincial governments, subject to the right to opt out of the proceeding.

Supreme Court Approves Constitutionality of Multi Crown Class Action

Supreme Court Approves Constitutionality of Multi-Crown Class Action

Jessica Kennedy

Regulatory Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Martin Ignasiak KC

Energy & Industrial Projects Lawyer

Head of Energy Regulatory Services

Larissa D. Lees

On June 9, 2026, the Government of Alberta enacted the Data Centre Regulation, AR 117/2026 under the Electric Utilities Act, codifying the province&rsquo;s &ldquo;bring your own generation&rdquo; policy and providing the legal foundation for the Alberta Electric System Operator&rsquo;s grid connection process for large data centres.&nbsp;

Albertas BYOG Framework

Alberta's BYOG Framework: What Data Centre and Generation Proponents Need to Know

J. Sébastien A. Gittens

Technology Lawyer & Trademark Agent

Partner, Trademark Agent

Caroline Poirier

IT, Privacy & Data Protection Lawyer

Stephen D. Burns

Energy & Infrastructure Technology Lawyer | IT/OT & Markets

Earlier this month, the federal government introduced the proposed federal Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA) &ndash; a signal that Canada&rsquo;s private-sector privacy landscape may undergo significant transformation imminently. To assist organizations that conduct business in Canada with their potential compliance efforts with respect thereto, the following is intended to provide a non-exhaustive, high-level comparison between: (i) the PPCDA; (ii) Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA); (iii) Qu&eacute;bec&rsquo;s Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (the Qu&eacute;bec Privacy Act, as amended by Law 25); and (iv) the Personal Information Protection Acts of Alberta and British Columbia (collectively, the PIPAs).

A Comparison of the PPCDA PIPEDA Quebecs Privacy Act and PIPA

A Comparison of the PPCDA, PIPEDA, Quebec's Privacy Act and PIPA

Adam W. Taylor

Corporate Commercial Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Matthew Flynn

Technology Transaction Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Simon Grant

Financial Services & Regulatory Lawyer

Canada's proposed Consumer-Driven Banking Regulations provide the first detailed framework for implementing the country's open banking regime, setting out requirements for accreditation, security, consent, data sharing and ongoing compliance. The proposed regulations also highlight the growing connection between consumer-driven banking and privacy reform, particularly as Canada advances broader data mobility rights. Organizations should assess the potential impact of the framework and consider participating in the current consultation process. 
<div>&nbsp;</div>

Canada Advances Consumer Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Canada Advances Consumer-Driven Banking Framework with Proposed Regulations

Ruth E. Promislow

Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI Lawyer

On June 4th, 2026, the federal government released Canada&rsquo;s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy: AI for All (the Strategy). The Strategy aims to ensure that artificial intelligence serves Canadians, strengthens businesses and communities and enhances Canada&rsquo;s control over its technological future through six key pillars.

Canadas AI for All Strategy Building Trust Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Canada’s AI for All Strategy: Building Trust, Innovation and Sovereignty in the Era of AI

Robert W. Staley

Securities & Commercial Litigation Lawyer | Shareholder Disputes

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice&rsquo;s decision in Nivora Group LLC v. Ping et al. clarifies the strict limits on Norwich orders in the context of crypto asset disputes. The Court dismissed a motion seeking third-party disclosure from cryptocurrency exchanges, reaffirming that Norwich relief is an extraordinary remedy available only where it is truly necessary and cannot be used to replace ordinary discovery. Even in cases involving alleged asset tracing, applicants must demonstrate that the third party is the only practicable source of the information and that the interests of justice favour disclosure.

Court Reaffirms Limits on Norwich Orders in Crypto Asset Disputes

Title Alphabetical

Title

normal

What Canadians Need to Know When Choosing a Seat of International Arbitration: Advantages and Disadvantages of Onshore vs. Offshore Arbitration

From the Same Authors