Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 OCTOBER 2024

Not Out Of The Woods Yet: When Regulatory Settlements Have Downstream Consequences For Class Action Certification

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

Mackenzie v. Chartwell Asset Management Inc ("Mackenzie"), is a recent decision in a continually evolving line of cases addressing the sufficiency of pleadings at the certification stage.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Mackenzie v. Chartwell Asset Management Inc ("Mackenzie")1 is a recent decision in a continually evolving line of cases addressing the sufficiency of pleadings at the certification stage. It also illustrates one way in which prior regulatory proceedings can affect class action certification risk.

Two important lessons emerge from Mackenzie:

  1. First, Mackenzie serves as a reminder that factual admissions in publicly-disclosed, regulatory settlements can have consequences for class action certification, potentially assisting plaintiffs to define their claims and also to meet the "some basis in fact" threshold for certification. This decision underscores the need for defendants to use careful language when drafting factual admissions, and to consider and mitigate potential class action risk proactively (e., at the drafting stage).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from