Around the world, class action and collective redress regimes are undergoing rapid transformation. Courts and legislatures are reshaping how collective claims are brought, assessed and resolved. This evolution materially increases litigation risk across jurisdictions, while expanding both the scope and sophistication of potential claims.
In Canada, several key trends are poised to shape the trajectory of class action litigation in the year ahead. These developments have emerged from significant jurisprudence and legislative activity over the past 12 months, reflecting both doctrinal shifts and a broader reorientation of how mass harm claims are conceived and pursued. In particular, the Canadian landscape is being defined by:
- The growing importance of forum selection amid procedural divergence between provinces;
- The continued expansion of government-led mass tort and healthcare recovery claims;
- Québec’s sustained role as a central, plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction;
- The emergence of new categories of liability, including digital harms and social media-related claims; and
- The accelerating global expansion of collective redress regimes.
These developments point to a litigation environment that is becoming more structured, more expansive and increasingly sophisticated. For businesses, the implications are significant: exposure is no longer confined to traditional private class actions, but now extends to government-driven proceedings, evolving statutory regimes and novel claims grounded in large-scale social and economic harm.
Procedural divergence is reshaping where claims are brought
In 2025, class action litigation in Canada unfolded against a backdrop of increasing divergence between provincial regimes.
British Columbia continues to attract new filings, supported by a relatively more accessible certification test and a plaintiff-friendly no adverse costs regime. By contrast, Ontario’s 2020 reforms have imposed additional predominance and superiority requirements, raising the bar at the certification stage.
As a result, filings have increasingly shifted away from Ontario toward jurisdictions such as British Columbia and Québec, where certification remains more permissive and cost consequences more favourable to plaintiffs.
Government-led litigation is expanding rapidly
A key driver of recent activity is the continued expansion of government-led healthcare cost recovery actions.
Provincial legislation now enables governments to pursue claims directly against private companies, relying on aggregate, population-level evidence and reducing the need for individualized proof of harm.
This approach has already proven effective, most notably in tobacco litigation, which culminated in a CA$32.5 billion global settlement in 2025. More recently, it has been extended to opioid-related claims, with legislation expanding liability across the supply chain, relaxing traditional causation requirements and permitting market-share-based apportionment.
In 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court certified a national opioid-related healthcare recovery action, reinforcing the low threshold for certification and the viability of these claims at scale. Provinces are also beginning to apply this model to new product categories, including vaping, with British Columbia initiating proceedings against JUUL Labs shortly after enacting industry-specific legislation.
These enactments have effectively created a general-purpose template for social-cost recovery arising from alleged product-related mass harm.
New categories of mass harm are emerging
This expansion is now extending into new areas, with several sectors facing growing exposure:
- PFAS and other chemical exposure claims;
- Social media platforms and digital harms;
- Ultra-processed foods and diet-related health impacts; and
- Fossil fuel producers linked to climate-related harm.
In particular, proposed legislation in British Columbia targeting mental health and addiction impacts linked to social media algorithms signals a significant potential expansion of liability into the digital sphere.
Securities litigation reflects a broader disclosure standard
In Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the scope of continuous disclosure obligations under the Ontario Securities Act.
The Court confirmed that a “material change” does not need to be fundamental or transformational. Any change in an issuer’s business, operations or capital may qualify, provided it is material in context and assessed against the Ontario Securities Act’s objective of reducing informational asymmetry and protecting market integrity.
Applying that framework, the Court found that operational disruptions affecting production, costs and mine planning could constitute a material change requiring timely disclosure. The Court also reaffirmed the low threshold for leave in secondary market claims, confirming that plaintiffs need only establish a plausible case supported by some credible evidence.
The decision is likely to broaden the circumstances in which operational events trigger disclosure obligations, increasing exposure for issuers where localized disruptions have financial or operational consequences.
Privacy litigation is shifting toward misuse-based claims
Privacy class actions are continuing to evolve, particularly as certain jurisdictions narrow the scope of traditional data breach liability, and others adopt a more permissive approach.
Appellate courts in Ontario, including in Owsianik v. Equifax Canada Co., have limited the tort of intrusion upon seclusion by holding that organizations are not liable where external hackers cause the breach. Similar reasoning has been adopted in other jurisdictions.
British Columbia courts, however, have taken a different approach, confirming that organizations may face liability under the statutory tort created by the province’s Privacy Act even where a breach is caused by third-party actors. This contrast may become increasingly significant as common law privacy claims narrow in Ontario and Alberta.
Courts have taken a mixed approach. Some have permitted these claims to proceed where properly pleaded, while others have refused certification where harm or improper use is not sufficiently established. The jurisprudence reflects an ongoing recalibration between narrowing common law privacy torts and expanding statutory and consent-based theories of liability.
Consumer protection remains a consistently active class action driver
Consumer protection continues to be a consistent driver of class actions in Canada, supported by statutory causes of action that facilitate common issues and aggregate resolution.
Recent legislative developments have reinforced this trend. In British Columbia, amendments have rendered arbitration clauses in consumer contracts unenforceable, aligning the province with Ontario and Québec in limiting contractual barriers to certification.
Québec has further expanded its Consumer Protection Act, including strengthened right-to-repair obligations that extend to subsequent purchasers and impose broader duties on manufacturers and merchants to provide repair services, parts or information, subject to limited opt-out mechanisms.
At the federal level, amendments to the Competition Act now permit private applications for deceptive marketing practices, including drip pricing, creating the potential for parallel proceedings before the Competition Tribunal and provincial superior courts.
Québec remains a central jurisdiction
Québec continues to play a critical role in shaping the Canadian class action landscape. Its low authorization threshold supports a wide range of claims, while recent decisions highlight how courts are engaging with broader economic and policy considerations.
In Metellus v. Québec (Attorney General), the Superior Court awarded CA$219 million in damages to taxi drivers following regulatory changes associated with ride-sharing platforms. This decision is significant for governments considering reform or deregulation in technology-enabled industries.
Meanwhile, Québec’s Consumer Protection Act continues to expand, including strengthened right-to-repair obligations that may increase exposure for manufacturers and merchants.
In April 2025, the Québec Court of Appeal ordered a national airline to pay CA$10 million in punitive damages for drip pricing, despite declining to award compensatory damages due to the absence of proven economic loss. The Court emphasized the deterrent function of punitive damages under the Consumer Protection Act. In early 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal, and its decision may further shape the scope of liability in this area.
Québec courts are also demonstrating increased oversight of class proceedings, particularly in the context of settlement approval and counsel fees, with a focus on ensuring meaningful outcomes for class members.
Global class actions: A rapidly diverging landscape
Across jurisdictions, 2025 reflected a clear divergence in collective redress, marked less by uniformity than by parallel acceleration in scope, funding sophistication and procedural complexity.
In the United States, class actions remain dominant in scale and creativity, driven by evolving theories in privacy, consumer protection, ESG, AI and financial innovation, alongside persistent procedural fragmentation and forum shopping.
In Europe, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy are consolidating their roles as key centres for funded cross-border collective litigation, while Poland illustrates a parallel shift toward coordinated individual claims in response to procedural constraints. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, courts are actively recalibrating the boundaries of collective proceedings, with tighter scrutiny of representative actions, funding structures and certification, even as reform debates continue.
Australia remains a consistently active and mature class action jurisdiction, with sustained exposure across securities, competition and consumer claims.
This overview provides only a snapshot of these developments—read the full Global class and collective actions: Recent trends and developments report for a deeper analysis of the forces reshaping collective redress worldwide.
Staying informed and agile remains critical as collective redress regimes expand and procedural frameworks continue to diverge across jurisdictions. Dentons’ Global Class Actions team brings together experienced litigators who regularly defend complex, high-value class and group proceedings across sectors including securities, consumer protection, privacy, competition, employment, environmental and emerging technology. Learn more: https://www.dentons.com/en/find-your-dentons-team/practices/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/class-action-defense.
***
Neil Rabinovitch is the co-leader of Dentons Canada’s national Class Action group and a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group. His practice focuses on commercial litigation and insolvency, with an emphasis on class action defence, product liability defence, cross-border restructurings, shareholder disputes, franchising, mortgage remedies, banking, real estate and commercial leasing. For more information about Neil, please visit: https://www.dentons.com/en/neil-rabinovitch
Margaret Weltrowska is the co-leader of Dentons Canada’s national Class Action group and leader of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group in Montréal. With over 20 years of experience, her practice focuses on commercial and civil litigation, class action, franchising and product liability. For more information about Margaret, please visit: https://www.dentons.com/en/margaret-weltrowska
Emma Irving is the co-leader of Dentons Canada’s national Class Action group and partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group. She represents national and regional clients in a variety of different commercial and regulatory disputes. For more information on Emma, please visit: https://www.dentons.com/en/emma-irving