Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

The Court of Appeal for Ontario confirms test for extension of time to opt out of class proceedings: A review of Johnson v. Ontario

By Marina Sampson, Matthew Fleming, and Janice Philteos
November 24, 2022
  • Class Action
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Johnson v. Ontario[1], the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed the test governing judicial discretion to extend the time for a class member to opt out of a class action.

Background

The representative class members commenced a proposed class proceeding against the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ontario), on behalf of all persons who were incarcerated at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC) between January 1, 2010, and May 18, 2017.

After the class action was certified on May 18, 2017, the Court approved a notice plan that advised class members of their right to opt out of the class action, the method, and the implications of doing so (the Notice Plan).

The Notice Plan provided that class members had to complete and return an opt out form by June 20, 2018. The Notice Plan contemplated that: the notice is published in two local newspapers, posted on the class counsel’s website, and sent by regular mail to the last known address of each class member.

The appellant was an inmate at EMDC within the class period but was transferred to a federal institution in August 2017, where he remained until 2019. During this time, class counsel mailed the long form of notice to the appellant’s last known address, where he had lived with his father prior to being incarcerated. While the appellant was in contact with his father, who was still residing at that address, the appellant denied receiving or seeing any notice regarding the class action before the opt out deadline.

In April 2020, the appellant commenced an individual action against Ontario and employees of EMDC, which included claims for breach of fiduciary duty and infringement of his Charter rights.

The appellant first learned of the class action in June 2020 when he received a letter from Ontario stating that his action overlapped with the class action and asking that the appellant discontinue his individual action against Ontario and its employees.

The appellant brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an extension of time to opt out of the class action, arguing that he was not made aware of the consolidated class action until after he had commenced his own proceeding.

The motions judge denied the appellant’s motion, effectively terminating his individual action. The appellant appealed the order to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal decision

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the motion judge, extending the time within which the appellant may opt out of the class action.

The motion judge had referred to Young v. London Life Insurance Co. (Young)[2] for the principle that the power to grant an extension of time to opt out will rarely be exercised. However, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge neither identified the test that he was applying nor referred to the “excusable neglect/no prejudice test,” set out in Young. The operative test provides that an extension of time to opt out will only be granted when:

(i) The delay in opting out is due to excusable neglect – in good faith and with a reasonable basis; and

(ii) An extension will not result in prejudice to the class, the defendant, or the administration of justice.[3]

Finding that the motion judge failed to articulate and apply the required test, the Court of Appeal went on to apply the test to the appellant’s case.

i) Excusable neglect

The Court held that the appellant established that his delay in opting out arose from excusable neglect because the appellant was incarcerated when the notice was published, and the notice was sent to an address where he was not physically present and did not return to during the optout period.

The Court found that the respondent had not argued that the appellant had delayed requesting an extension of time to opt out after the appellant became aware of the class proceeding.

ii) Prejudice

The Court noted that there was no evidence of any judgment or settlement of the class proceeding or steps that might have been taken in reliance on the appellant being a participating class member or on the number of class members who had opted out. The Court acknowledged that had the appellant tried to extend the time for opting out after the class action had settled or resulted in a judgment, his request would most likely have been denied on the basis of prejudice.

Further, Ontario did not point to any prejudice that it would suffer, nor did the certified class oppose the appeal, which was a strong indicator that granting an extension of time to the appellant would not cause prejudice to the class.

Takeaway

A class member who seeks to opt out of a class action following the deadline to do so must show two things: (1) “excusable neglect” in failing to comply with the opt out deadline; and (2) that the extension of time to opt out will not prejudice the class, the defendant, or the administration of justice.

Plaintiffs who seek to retain their ability to bring individual actions would do well to keep an eye on proposed class actions and ensure that they opt out once they are aware of any obligation to do so. Johnson v. Ontario has clarified that if putative class members are not aware of their obligations, they may be excused, but only if there is no prejudice. 

For more information, please reach out to the authors Marina Sampson, Matthew Fleming, and Janice Philteos.


[1] Johnson v. Ontario, 2022 ONCA 725

[2] [2002] O.J. No. 5971 (QL) [Young].

[3] Para 38-40.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Marina Sampson

About Marina Sampson

Marina is a commercial litigator and a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution practice group. Marina is an experienced class action lawyer. She is also a member of the firm’s Environmental, Renewable Energy and Energy Law Practice Group. She is the National Co-Lead of the firm’s Products Liability Group.

All posts Full bio

Matthew Fleming

About Matthew Fleming

Matthew Fleming is a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group of Dentons’ Toronto office and is the Co-Lead of the Firm’s global Financial Services Litigation group. His practice focuses on commercial litigation, including securities litigation, class actions, product liability and professional liability matters.

All posts Full bio

Janice Philteos

About Janice Philteos

Janice Philteos (She/Her/Hers) is an associate in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group in the Toronto office of Dentons Canada. Janice has a broad commercial and civil litigation practice and has experience with a broad range of litigation matters, including corporate and shareholder disputes, contractual disputes, professional negligence, and securities litigation.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Class Action
  • Securities Litigation

Securities class actions: How to protect yourself and your cannabis business

By Matthew Fleming and Ara Basmadjian
  • Class Action
  • Professional Liability

Recent Ontario Court decision confirms presumption on pre-certification motions sequencing: Implications for class actions

By Marina Sampson and A.J. Freedman
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation

The impact of the coronavirus crisis on the franchise industry and what franchisors and franchisees can do to survive

By Babette Märzheuser-Wood and Helen Fotinos

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Arbitration
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Covid-19
  • Energy
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Technology and new media
  • White Collar Crime
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site