Search Results

While Canadian law generally provides protection against sexual orientation discrimination, and social acceptance is growing, there are some indications that LGBTQ lawyers face barriers relating to their sexual identity. Although more LGBTQ lawyers are now ‘out at work’, quantitative data is incomplete, and little is known about the actual experience of LGBTQ lawyers, who enter big firms in Ontario with the hope to advance through the ranks. This article begins to address this gap by providing qualitative analysis of the personal experience of LGBTQ lawyers entering the profession and the extent to which in-firm diversity initiatives shape their experience. Three main themes emerged from the interviews. First, racialized gay lawyers more consciously described their experiences at big law firms as negative and related it to their minority status. Second, the interviews offer insight into the ways in which gays and lesbians are forced to negotiate and perform their identity in a heteronormative workplace. Finally, the insights gleaned from the interviews suggest that the diversity programs devised by law firms may have helped diversify the lower ranks of law firms, but they seem to have failed to address the barriers that equity-seeking groups continue to face in retention and advancement through the ranks. The heteronormative organizational culture, as well as the promotion and compensation structures in firms continue to drive the composition of the leadership ranks and it arguably perpetuates homogeneity.

Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act [CPA] is 30 years old. In the past three decades, it has inspired similar legislation across Canada and around the world, and its capacity for bringing about social change has been widely acknowledged. But, like all things that mature, some cracks are beginning to show. The certification test under section 5 of the CPA has been made more restrictive by recent legislative amendments. In addition, class action practitioners are starting to recognize that the CPA can be a blunt instrument and that some mass claims are better litigated outside of that context. While smaller claims may find safety in numbers in a class action, larger claims that require more individualized treatment may get lost in the crowd. Outside of the CPA, however, there is minimal guidance in this area, and this can lead to uncertainty and delay.This article proposes a set of informal guidelines for the litigation of mass claims in Ontario, informed by multidistrict litigation in the US and group litigation in England & Wales, as well as the theory and history of mass claims typology. This guidance will reduce uncertainty and delay by facilitating agreement between parties on procedural steps and provide much-needed direction for a growing phenomenon.

The most controversial of the recent amendments to Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act is the addition of two requirements to the certification test: to meet the preferable procedure criterion, s. 5(1.1) requires that common issues in the litigation must now “predominate” over individual issues, and a class action must be “superior” to all other forms of resolution. The importance of the interpretation of Ontario’s new certification test to the continued viability of class actions in the province merits a thorough and rigorous analysis of s. 5(1.1). The language of predominance and superiority is strikingly similar to requirements that have long applied to US class actions for monetary damages. As courts in Ontario begin to grapple with the new predominance and superiority requirements, however, the authors caution against turning to American jurisprudence for guidance. Several important structural differences between the Ontario and American class action regimes, as well as different constitutional considerations and a variety of approaches within US case law diminish its utility. Instead, the authors examine the history and language of the amendments to propose an interpretation of the predominance and superiority requirements that is informed by Canada’s own procedural and constitutional framework and that avoids the pitfalls of legal transplants.