To listen to an audio recording of this article, click here.
This quarter featured several Ontario decisions refusing stays of parallel and individual actions. Courts also considered competing approaches to the predominance test, allowed failure-to-warn and recall-notice claims involving allegedly flawed product designs to proceed and varied an unpaid costs award to make plaintiff’s counsel personally liable.
Parallel Class Action Not Stayed
In Yee v. Telus International (Cda) Inc., 2026 ONSC 3165, in considering the statutory factors laid out for stays, the court declined to stay a proposed Ontario global securities class action concerning alleged omissions about Telus’s developing AI products, despite a similar B.C. proceeding. The Ontario action was further ahead and likely to move faster, lowering the risk of inconsistent outcomes.
