PR is a top-tier litigation boutique.
We embrace complexity to produce simple and intelligent solutions.

Our Expertise

Class Actions

Our specialized class action group is a team of talented lawyers with extensive experience in all aspects of class proceedings, from inception through trial and appeals.

The breadth of our class action practice sets us apart from many other firms.

  • The Paliare Roland class action team has decades of experience as class counsel on the plaintiff side.
  • Our team frequently represents defendants on other cases.
  • We are often called on by members of the class action bar for advice, or to mediate their complex class actions.
  • Our insolvency specialists are often retained to provide critical insolvency advice on class actions.
  • We are regularly retained to provide opinions on proposed class actions to litigation funders.
  • The firm has also been appointed by the court to act as amicus curiae.

This extensive experience from a range of perspectives provides the Paliare Roland class action lawyers with unique strategic insights that we bring to bear on each of our cases.

Paliare Roland is ranked by Chambers Global as a leading law firm on plaintiff-side class actions, and a number of our senior partners are ranked and recognized in class actions by Lexpert® Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory, Chambers Global, Best Lawyers, and The Legal 500.

Paliare Roland’s expertise and problem-solving on class actions is consistently recognized in the industry. One commenter quoted in Chambers Global (2022), stated:

“I have uniformly found their lawyers to be intelligent, practical, driven, honest and great fun to work with.”

Linda Rothstein has been noted as “a highly respected and regarded litigator – fearless and smart” [Chambers Global, 2022].

Odette Soriano has been “noted for her ‘spectacular problem-solving instincts’” [The Legal 500] and having done “a first-rate job on an extremely complex matter” [Chambers Global, 2022].

Paliare Roland recently acted for a class which obtained summary judgment against BMO Nesbitt Burns, BMO InvestorLine and BMO Trust Company for breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty and obtained an order for an accounting of profits. The case was a recipient of the Benchmark Litigation Canada 2021 Impact Case Award. While appeals were pending, the case settled for a total payment of $100 million. MacDonald v. BMO Trust Company, 2020 ONSC 93 (summary judgment on common issues); 2021 ONSC 3726 (settlement approval).

Paliare Roland’s class action group has successfully litigated and resolved cases involving such matters as:

  • Breach of trust
  • Breach of contract
  • Consumer protection
  • Competition/anti-trust claims
  • Investor claims
  • Franchisor-franchisee claims
  • Product liability, including medical devices, drugs, and automotive claims
  • Pension fund allocations
  • Professional negligence
  • Institutional abuse

Paliare Roland’s class action group is currently acting on the following plaintiff-side proceedings:

  • representing the class of over 200,000 registered account holders against BMO Trust, BMO Nesbitt Burns and BMO InvestorLine for breach of trust
  • representing Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees against Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
  • representing PayPal users against PayPal Inc. for breach of user agreements
  • representing holders of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Access Passports against Nova Scotia government in respect of indigenous rights
  • co-counsel representing the proposed class of Métis and Non-Status Indians who were affected by the Sixties Scoop

Please contact us for information on our defence-side class action practice.

Representative Work

  • Macdonald v. BMO Trust – The parties entered into a settlement agreement under which the defendants agreed to pay $100,000,000 to settle this class action, with the administration to be conducted and funded by the defendants. On June 17, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the parties’ settlement of this class action. A copy of the Court’s decision can be accessed here.
  • Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. – The firm acted for a class in a claim alleging that Shoppers Drug Mart has breached certain terms of the Associate Agreement, as well as its statutory and common law duty of good faith and fair dealing regarding the operation of the franchise system. In respect of all Associates, excluding Quebec, the claim seeks damages for excessive charges by Shoppers Drug Mart in respect of cost recovery fees and equipment rentals and leasing, as well as commercially unreasonable procurement and inventory policies.
  • Bozsik v. Livingston, 2019 ONSC 5340 — Chris Paliare and Paul Davis were appointed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to act as amicus curiae on motion to approve a proposed settlement and class counsel fees. The Court commented:

    [12] Before closing, I should specifically note the assistance I was given by amicus in this process. As I noted in my endorsement appointing Mr. Paliare, a judge entertaining a motion to approve a settlement, and the fees of class counsel, is at a distinct disadvantage. Both parties will urge that the settlement be approved. The defendant has no interest in challenging the reasonableness of the fees of class counsel. It is important, in my view, that some process be available to the court in order to assist in exercising due diligence. As discussed by the Court of Appeal in Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Co., 2011 ONCA 233, 106 O.R. (3d) 37, one method of doing so is through the appointment of amicus.

    [13] In this case, Mr. Paliare and Mr. Davis thoroughly analyzed the material and were able to provide considerable assurance to me that the settlement and the fees of class counsel were reasonable. One relatively minor error was uncovered, which resulted in a slight increase in the amount to be allocated to the class members. The error was promptly acknowledged by counsel for the plaintiff, and was corrected.

    [15] I am very grateful for the assistance that Mr. Paliare and Mr. Davis provided to the court.
  • Varley v. Canada (AG)
  • Sino-Forest – Ken Rosenberg, Max Starnino, and Lindsay Scott were retained as insolvency counsel by lawyers representing a class of investors alleging negligence against the auditor of Sino-Forest. The claims against the auditor settled in a court-supervised insolvency proceeding under the CCAA.
  • Toronto Community Housing Corporation v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2012 ONSC 6626  2012 ONSC 225 (Div. Ct.) certification appeal – Linda Rothstein and Odette Soriano represented a class of elevator owners who alleged that their elevators had faulty braking systems. The action settled.

FAQs

What do I have to do to join a class action?
What is a class action
If I believe that I fall within the definition of one or more of the classes but do not want to be part of the class action(s). What do I do?
What is a representative plaintiff? What is a representative defendant?
As a class member, do I have any responsibility to pay for any cost awards made in the litigation?

Class Actions Lawsuits

  • Plaintiff
  • Defence
  • Current Cases
  • Past Cases
Our Expertise

See all practice areas