News & Publications Results

Three recent decisions from Ontario, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia may change the way in which pension litigation is funded in Canada and indicate that the courts may be taking a different approach to funding issues than in the past. Traditionally, in such cases, it was not uncommon for a plaintiff to be indemnified out of the pension fund thereby shielding unsuccessful plaintiffs from adverse costs awards.

Pension and benefit plan administrators are becoming increasingly familiar with litigation and in particular, class proceedings. We have seen a tremendous increase in both the number of pension and the breadth of issues raised in those actions. What are some winning strategies for defendants in pension class actions?

This paper will first review the history of the conflict between class proceedings and arbitration in Canada, and then address whether Union des consommateurs v. Dell Computer Corp. has provided guidance that arbitration agreements should, in general, be respected and that class proceeding legislation should not be regarded as providing a substantive ground to negate an arbitrator’s jurisdiction.

In finding that arbitration prevailed over class proceedings, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has effectively ruled that a wide range of pension disputes in British Columbia can be put in the hands of a private arbitrator, rather than be subject to class proceedings, if one of the parties to the disputes wishes to do so.

Litigation is a fact of life for pension and benefit plan administrators and sponsors. The scope, frequency and complexity of litigation in this area continue to increase each year. The purpose of this paper is to discuss and update the current trends in pension and benefits litigation as they relate to class actions.

The Uniform Law Conference of Canada recently drafted a report that addressed the desirability of allowing national or multi-jurisdictional class actions.

Over the past few years, courts in Canada have faced the apparent conflict between competing statutory mandates with respect to class proceedings and arbitrations. The British Columbia Court of Appeal resolved the statutory conflict by requiring a court to weigh the circumstances of each case to determine whether a class proceeding or arbitration is the preferable procedure.

In September 2004 the Canadian Bar Association offered an online CLE entitled "An Insider's Guide to Class Certification", presented by Rod Hayley and Ward Branch.

Since the mid-1980s litigation has been a fact of life for pension and employee benefit plan administrators and sponsors. However, there is a widely shared impression that the scope and frequency of such litigation is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to examine more closely this increase in pension and benefit litigation in Canada, and to comment on the role class action legislation may have had on this phenomenon.

Pension disputes are fertile ground for class actions. Where one member of a plan may not think it economic to bring a claim relating to the terms of that plan, a class action allows one plaintiff and one class action lawyer to aggregate all of these members’ claims into one proceeding. Given the monetary value of pension plans in Canada today, it can be expected that more and more pension disputes will be decided in the context of a class action.

The bitterness and desire for public recognition of the significant harm caused by the Chinese head tax led to a recent class action, seeking on behalf of those throughout Canada who were forced to pay the tax, as well as their surviving family members, a public apology, damages in excess of a billion dollars, and other remedies.