Key Takeaways
- The Ontario Superior Court recently refused to stay a proposed global securities class action commenced in Ontario despite a substantially similar proceeding in British Columbia.
- It is becoming increasingly difficult for defendants to consolidate or stay overlapping class proceedings — even when the claims are virtually identical.
- The ruling suggests that well-resourced defendants may face more challenges in seeking relief from duplicative litigation costs.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently declined to stay a proposed global securities class action in favour of a substantially similar proposed global securities class action filed in British Columbia. The decision is the first to interpret the provisions of the Ontario Class Proceedings Act[1] (CPA) enacted in 2020 to address duplicative class proceedings brought in different Canadian provinces. The defendants now face proposed global class actions in two provinces, with all the attendant costs, complexity, and risks of conflicting decisions.
Background and the decision
The CPA enumerates several factors to be considered by an Ontario court in determining whether to stay an action, including fairness to the parties, avoiding conflicting judgments, promoting efficiency, the stages of each proceeding, and the litigation plans and resources available for advancing the proceedings.
In Yee v. Telus International (Cda) Inc.,[2] Justice Morgan rejected the defendants’ submission that the statutory objectives favoured a stay of the Ontario action, and observing that the corporate defendant is “a formidably resourced and capable litigant in any jurisdiction”, found that the perils of multiple proceedings and the impact on judicial economy must be balanced against ensuring the interests of all parties are given due consideration and that the ends of justice are served.
Why this matters for public companies in Canada
The Court’s focus on a defendant’s size and financial resources in determining the appropriate forum for the proceeding has significant implications for defendants. It risks setting a troubling precedent that well-resourced corporate defendants are less deserving of relief from the burden and inefficiency of duplicative proceedings. If adopted more broadly, this reasoning could effectively penalize well-resourced businesses by presuming that they can absorb the costs of duplicative litigation.
The Court’s reasons also suggest that a TSX listing may weigh against staying an Ontario securities class action, as the Court noted that the largest institutional shareholders of the corporate defendant were Ontario-based funds, and appeared to accept the plaintiff’s submission that such investors “deserve the benefit of the OSA’s overarching policies”, finding that “[l]itigating the case outside of Ontario and under another province’s securities legislation and case law might or might not be efficient, but it would not fulfill the OSA’s regulatory promise.” For TSX-listed companies facing parallel class proceedings, this implies that Ontario courts will be reluctant to cede jurisdiction in securities class actions to any other province, regardless of where the issuer is headquartered.
More broadly, Yee is the latest in a line of decisions that has made it increasingly difficult for defendants to consolidate overlapping class proceedings into a single jurisdiction — even when the claims are virtually identical.[3] This trend carries real prejudice for defendants, who face the burden of duplicative litigation costs and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact across jurisdictions. The suggestion in Yee that defendants can rely on a shared record or coordinate across jurisdictions offers limited comfort, as the specific allegations, causes of action, and procedural requirements in each province may demand materially different evidentiary responses.
[1] S.O. 1992, c. 6.
[2] 2026 ONSC 3165.
[3] Recent examples include Kirsh v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2021 ONSC 6190, InvestorCOM v. L’Anton, 2025 BCCA 40, and Strathdee v. Johnson & Johnson, 2026 ONSC 1186 (see our previous commentary on those decisions here and here).
