How Recent Court Rulings Shape Class Action Certification In British Columbia

If you are included in a class action that has been started in British Columbia, one of the first questions you likely have is whether the lawsuit will proceed. The answer depends on class action certification — a procedural step that determines whether a claim can move forward on behalf of a broader group rather than as a series of individual lawsuits. 

Recent decisions from British Columbia courts provide helpful guidance on how certification works in practice and what it means for potential class members. For potential class members, understanding certification is crucial because it affects rights, obligations, and the ability to participate in settlements or trials. 

What is class action certification?

Class action certification is the point at which the court decides whether a claim is suitable to proceed as a class action under British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act. Certification acts as a procedural gatekeeper, ensuring that only cases that meet specific legal requirements can move forward on behalf of a group of plaintiffs rather than as individual lawsuits. Until certification is granted, a lawsuit cannot advance on a class-wide basis. The certification application typically occurs early in the litigation process, though there can be delays.  

Who applies for certification?

Certification is sought on behalf of all proposed class members by the proposed representative plaintiff. Typically, class member participation is not required at the certification stage.  

The main purpose of class action certification is to determine if the case meets the procedural requirements of the Class Proceedings Act. The court's role is not to decide the merits of the claims, but to perform a screening function to ensure the action is suitable for litigation as a class proceeding.

Five requirements for class action certification in B.C.

A proposed representative plaintiff must meet five requirements for an action to be certified. Those requirements are set out in section 4 of the Class Proceedings Act. They are that:  

1. The pleadings (a legal document filed with the Court to start the litigation) disclose a cause of action;  
2. There is an identifiable class of two or more people;  
3. The claims of class members raise common issues;  
4. A class proceeding is the preferable procedure; and 
5. There is a representative plaintiff who, among other things, would fairly and adequately represent the interests of class members.  

The "cause of action" and "common issues" requirements are discussed in more detail below. 

Section 4(1)(a) of Class Proceedings Act: The cause of action requirement

Section 4(1)(a) of British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act requires that the pleadings (a legal document filed with the Court to start the litigation) disclose a "cause of action". The cause of action test under section 4(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act is a low threshold. The court must determine whether, assuming all the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs are true, it is "plain and obvious" that the claim cannot succeed. If the claim is not bound to fail, it passes this  test.¹  For potential class members, this means that certification is not about whether you will win, but whether you have a legally recognizable claim. Even if the lawsuit ultimately fails at trial, a valid cause of action ensures that class members have their day in court and can benefit from the procedural advantages of a certified class action.

Recent B.C. court decisions illustrating the cause of action test

Two recent decisions illustrate how this test is applied in practice. These cases provide insight into how BC courts evaluate the legal foundation of proposed class actions and highlight the importance of meeting procedural requirements for potential class members. 

Syngenta AG v. Van Wijngaarden, 2025 BCCA 334: Negligence certification upheld

In Syngenta, the British ColumbiaCourt of Appeal upheld certification of negligence claims arising from allegations that exposure to the herbicide paraquat causes Parkinson's disease. The court found that the pleadings disclosed a viable negligence claim based on allegations that the manufacturer knew or ought to have known of the risks and failed to warn users. 

However, the Court of Appeal refused to certify a battery claim. It held that placing a product into the stream of commerce does not amount to the "direct contact" required to establish battery. The decision underscores that while the cause of action threshold is low, it still requires a coherent legal foundation.² 

RateMDs Inc. v. Bleuler, 2025 BCCA 329: Cause of action not met

This privacy class action against a doctor review website was found not to meet the cause of action criteria on appeal since the Court of Appeal held that the pleadings did not disclose a viable cause of action under British Columbia's Privacy Act. The plaintiff argued that RateMDs violated her privacy by creating profiles of health professionals using publicly available information. The court held that this novel claim was "bound to fail" because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in publicly available professional information, and the claim would "turn the right to privacy on its head". This case shows that even novel claims, while permitted, must have a reasonable prospect of success to meet the section 4(1)(a) requirement.³

Section 4(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act: The common issues requirement

Section 4(1)(c) of British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act requires that the claims of class members raise common issues. This is a fundamental requirement in certifying class actions in British Columbia because it ensures that a class action is procedurally suitable and that claims can be efficiently litigated on behalf of multiple plaintiffs.

The one-step and two-step approach to common issues

This requirement has become a focal point in recent cases with courts grappling with whether a so-called "one-step" or "two-step" approach to the common issues should be adopted.

Under the "one-step" approach, the Court focuses on whether the common issues can be answered in common across the class. This approach avoids requiring detailed evidentiary proof on the merits of the case before certification.

Under the "two-step" approach, the Court considers both whether:

• (i) the common issues can be answered in common across the class; and
• (ii) there is a basis in fact on the evidence submitted at the certification hearing that the common issues exist.  

The concern with the two-step test for potential class members is that it requires the Court to assess the evidence in support of the class action before the plaintiff has had access to all the procedural tools need to gather the evidence. Most of those tools are only available after certification.   

What certification means for potential class members 

Understanding what certification means is essential for anyone who receives notice that they may be part of a class action. Certification directly affects whether you will be bound by the outcome of the class proceeding. Here's what you need to know: 

B.C. residents are automatically included

If a class is certified in British Columbia, both residents and non-residents are automatically included unless they opt out. There should ordinarily be information about how to opt out of a class proceeding in communications from the representative plaintiff's counsel providing notice of certification. Typically, there is a deadline for opting out of an action. As a result, it is important to act quickly if you intend to opt out.  

If you do nothing, you will generally remain part of the class and will be legally bound by the outcome of the case, including any judgment or court-approved settlement.

Certification is not a decision on liability or damages

When a court certifies a class action, it is not saying the plaintiffs will win. It is simply finding that the case meets the procedural requirements to proceed as a class action. The actual determination of liability and damages comes later, often years down the line. 

Class members will be bound by the outcome of the common issues trial

If a class member does not opt out of a class proceeding, then they will be bound by the outcome of the common issues trial (unless the action is resolved before trial). A common issues trial resolves legal or factual questions that apply across the entire class, such as whether a defendant breached a duty of care, violated privacy legislation, or engaged in unlawful conduct. If the class is successful on some or all the common issues, there may be individual issues remaining that require your participation.  

Class members will be bound by any court-approved settlement

If a class member does not opt out of a class proceeding, then they will typically be bound by any subsequent settlement that is approved by the Court. Before approval, the court must determine that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members. It is normally the case that class members will have to submit a claim for monetary compensation through a Court approved administration process.  

Certification denial means the class action cannot proceed

If a court refuses to certify a class action, the case cannot proceed as a class proceeding in British Columbia. Individual plaintiffs may still pursue their claims separately, but the collective nature of the litigation ends. As a result, individual plaintiffs will miss out on the cost-sharing benefits of a class action lawsuit. This is why the certification hearing is often the most important event in a class action. 

Certification as the foundation of class action justice 

Section 4(1)(a) of British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act serves as the gateway to access to justice. For potential class members, understanding certification is important. Certification means the case can proceed, but it does not guarantee success. It is a threshold requirement that protects the interests of class members by ensuring that only procedurally appropriate claims receive the benefits of class action procedure.  

The author would like to thank Mickenna Laurin, an articling student at Siskinds LLP, for her assistance in preparing this article.  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.