Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 JULY 2021

Section 5(1)(a) Still Has Teeth: The Divisional Court Holds Crown Immunity Precludes 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

In Leroux v. Ontario, 2021 ONSC 2269 ("Leroux"), a majority of the Ontario Divisional Court overturned two decisions certifying claims in negligence against the Crown on the grounds that the ...

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Leroux v. Ontario, 2021 ONSC 2269 ("Leroux"),1 a majority of the Ontario Divisional Court overturned two decisions2 certifying claims in negligence against the Crown on the grounds that the negligence claims did not satisfy section 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 ("CPA");3 which requires the plaintiff's claim disclose a cause of action. Although the threshold is low, Leroux is a reminder that the "cause of action" criterion in s. 5(1)(a) still has teeth. 

Background

Leroux concerned a proposed class action against the Ontario government. The class action alleged "serious operational flaws" in the how the government managed the delivery of essential services and supports to eligible adults with developmental disabilities under the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with the Developmental Disabilities Act (the "MCSSA").4

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