<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Class Actions &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/class-actions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 02:36:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>S. 29.1(1) of Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act: When Can a Court Dismiss a Class Action for Delay?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/s-29-11-of-ontarios-class-proceedings-act-when-can-a-court-dismiss-a-class-action-for-delay/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=s-29-11-of-ontarios-class-proceedings-act-when-can-a-court-dismiss-a-class-action-for-delay</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/s-29-11-of-ontarios-class-proceedings-act-when-can-a-court-dismiss-a-class-action-for-delay/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7335</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Sebastian di Domenico In Tataryn v. Diamond &#38; Diamond Lawyers LLP, 2025 ONCA 5, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the issue of how to interpret s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (the “CPA”) which came into force on October 1, 2020. The particular section addresses when a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/s-29-11-of-ontarios-class-proceedings-act-when-can-a-court-dismiss-a-class-action-for-delay/">S. 29.1(1) of Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act: When Can a Court Dismiss a Class Action for Delay?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/s-29-11-of-ontarios-class-proceedings-act-when-can-a-court-dismiss-a-class-action-for-delay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class Action Certification Round 2 – New Judge, Same Result</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/class-action-certification-round-2-new-judge-same-result/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=class-action-certification-round-2-new-judge-same-result</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/class-action-certification-round-2-new-judge-same-result/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6447</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Riley Groskopf The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released its new certification decision in Nordik Windows Inc. v. Aviva Insurance Co., 2023 ONSC 1804. The decision of Justice Morgan was the second certification motion for the proposed class action, after Justice Belobaba issued an Order that a new hearing be convened and recused [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/class-action-certification-round-2-new-judge-same-result/">Class Action Certification Round 2 – New Judge, Same Result</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/class-action-certification-round-2-new-judge-same-result/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-107/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-107</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-107/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pleadings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6445</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly Friday meeting, Katrina Taibi discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Li v. Barber, 2023 ONSC 1679. Overview: A motion by the plaintiffs to amend the Statement of Claim, and a motion by a group of defendants to strike the Statement of Claim for no cause of action and [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-107/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-107/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Standard of Care and Causation in Medical Malpractice Class Actions</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/standard-of-care-and-causation-in-medical-malpractice-class-actions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=standard-of-care-and-causation-in-medical-malpractice-class-actions</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/standard-of-care-and-causation-in-medical-malpractice-class-actions/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2023 22:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Malpractice]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6408</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Erin Crochetière In Levac v. James,[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal regarding the standard of care and causation in a class action alleging breach of applicable Infection Prevention and Control (“IPAC”) best practices causing infection. In the underlying class action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, Dr. James, caused the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/standard-of-care-and-causation-in-medical-malpractice-class-actions/">Standard of Care and Causation in Medical Malpractice Class Actions</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/standard-of-care-and-causation-in-medical-malpractice-class-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Declines to Certify Class Action against Parent Corporations of Alleged Tortfeasors</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-declines-to-certify-class-action-against-parent-corporations-of-alleged-tortfeasors/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-declines-to-certify-class-action-against-parent-corporations-of-alleged-tortfeasors</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-declines-to-certify-class-action-against-parent-corporations-of-alleged-tortfeasors/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2022 22:04:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5632</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Erin Crochetière In David v. Loblaw[1] the Ontario Superior Court partially certified a class action against retailers and producers of packaged bread. One of the issues addressed by the Court was whether the plaintiffs’ claims against parent corporations of the bread producers met the requirements for certification. Overview The plaintiffs claim that the defendants [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-declines-to-certify-class-action-against-parent-corporations-of-alleged-tortfeasors/">Court Declines to Certify Class Action against Parent Corporations of Alleged Tortfeasors</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-declines-to-certify-class-action-against-parent-corporations-of-alleged-tortfeasors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Denial of Extension of a Class Action Opt-Out Deadline is a Final Order</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-extension-of-a-class-action-opt-out-deadline-is-a-final-order/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=denial-of-extension-of-a-class-action-opt-out-deadline-is-a-final-order</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-extension-of-a-class-action-opt-out-deadline-is-a-final-order/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5398</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Athina Ionita In Johnson v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 650, the Court of Appeal determined that a decision refusing to extend the deadline for opting out of a class action affects a substantive right, and is therefore a final order, as it disposed of the plaintiff’s ability to continue his civil action. Facts An inmate, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-extension-of-a-class-action-opt-out-deadline-is-a-final-order/">Denial of Extension of a Class Action Opt-Out Deadline is a Final Order</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-extension-of-a-class-action-opt-out-deadline-is-a-final-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pre-Certification Summary Judgment Motions in Class Actions</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/pre-certification-summary-judgment-motions-in-class-actions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pre-certification-summary-judgment-motions-in-class-actions</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/pre-certification-summary-judgment-motions-in-class-actions/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 21:34:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5393</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In October 2020, the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was amended to provide for an early resolution of issues. Section 4.1 of the Act states: 4.1 If, before the hearing of the motion for certification, a motion is made under the rules of court that may dispose of the proceeding in whole or in part, or narrow [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/pre-certification-summary-judgment-motions-in-class-actions/">Pre-Certification Summary Judgment Motions in Class Actions</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/pre-certification-summary-judgment-motions-in-class-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-42</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2021 14:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5015</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Chris MacDonald discussed the Superior Court’s decision in Del Giudice v. Thompson,&#160;2021 ONSC 2696. In this decision, the plaintiffs, Rina Del Giudice and Daniel Wood, sought court approval of a settlement agreement with the defendant, Github Inc., pursuant to section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, whereby the action would [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-42/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Approves $23 Million Settlement of Bank Cyber Breach Class Actions</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-approves-23-million-settlement-of-bank-cyber-breach-class-actions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-approves-23-million-settlement-of-bank-cyber-breach-class-actions</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-approves-23-million-settlement-of-bank-cyber-breach-class-actions/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:05:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4913</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Andrew Yolles The Ontario Superior Court recently released joint decisions in Mallette v. Bank of Montreal, 2021 ONSC 2924, and Bannister v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2021 ONSC 2927, approving the settlement of both class actions arising from a data breach that occurred at BMO and CIBC in May of 2018. Background On [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-approves-23-million-settlement-of-bank-cyber-breach-class-actions/">Court Approves $23 Million Settlement of Bank Cyber Breach Class Actions</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/court-approves-23-million-settlement-of-bank-cyber-breach-class-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays With Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-35/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-35</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-35/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4875</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Athina Ionita discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Francis v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 197. Francis is an appeal arising from a summary judgment motion in a class action commenced against the Province by inmates subject to administrative segregation in Ontario&#8217;s correctional institutions. On the summary judgment [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-35/">Fridays With Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-35/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
