WWW.LEXPERT.CA
|
2017
|
LEXPERT 27
Legrand, André Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
(514) 847-4412 andre.legrand@nortonrosefulbright.com
Mr. Legrand focuses on insurance law and professional liability, including
general, D&O, professional and property liability insurance. He also
represents the interests of corporations' directors and officers, and manages
claims for insurers.
Lefebvre, QC, Wilfrid Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
(514) 847-4440 wilfrid.lefebvre@nortonrosefulbright.com
Mr. Lefebvre practises in the area of income tax, mainly tax dispute
resolution. He appears before tax authorities, courts and administrative
tribunals. He was in charge of tax litigation for the federal government.
Lederman, Eli S. Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP
(416) 865-3555 elederman@litigate.com
Mr. Lederman's practice covers a broad range of complex commercial
litigation matters, including securities law, class actions, commercial
contracts, oppression and other shareholder litigation. He has appeared as
lead counsel at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada,
the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Le Vay, Paul H. Stockwoods LLP
(416) 593-2493 paullv@stockwoods.ca
Mr. Le Vay's bilingual practice focuses on commercial, securities and
professional negligence. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial
Lawyers and of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, a Trustee of the
Law Foundation of Ontario and a contributing editor to two law journals.
Lax, QC, LSM, C. Clifford Lax O'Sullivan Lisus
Gottlieb LLP (416) 598-0988 clax@counsel-toronto.com
Mr. Lax's litigation and arbitration practice emphasizes corporate, securities,
real estate, environmental and defamation matters. He is a Fellow of the
ACTL and IATL, and sits on the Commercial Panel of International Centre
for Dispute Resolution.
Lapierre, Stéphanie Stikeman Elliott LLP
(514) 397-3029 slapierre@stikeman.com
Ms. Lapierre is a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group.
Her practice focuses on corporate and securities law where she represents
reporting issuers in connection with contested transactions, and internal
investigations and enforcement proceedings instituted in response
to allegations made by whistleblowers and with investigations instituted
by securities regulators.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
the open court principle of Canadian common
law, which requires court proceedings to be ac-
cessible to the public and the media unless com-
pelling conditions exist to hold them in camera.
"Another reason," says Jilesen, "is that if the rep-
resentative plaintiff is anonymous, other mem-
bers might ask how they would be able to know
if [that person] can adequately represent the rest
of the class."
Although Jilesen says she is unaware of any
Ontario class action suits in which the plaintiff
has been allowed anonymity, courts may soon be
faced with such demands. "is is a hot issue,"
says Chris Naudie, co-chair of class actions at Os-
ler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP. "is is an emer-
ging issue that coincides with the rise of what I
call privacy and data-breach class action suits. It
highlights a tension in the structure of our class-
action proceedings legislation."
e tension, he says, arises when,
in certain types of cases, "there's a
claim of harm related to the disclo-
sure of the identity of the class mem-
ber and intimate details relating to
that class member's life." e types
of cases where anonymity (or the use
of a pseudonym) might come into
play, says Yves Martineau, a part-
ner and class-action litigator in the
Montréal office of Stikeman Elliott
LLP, are fairly obvious.
"Maybe involving victims of sex-
ual assault, mental-health issues,
pharmaceuticals, those kinds of
matters. I would certainly support
that, but they would be the excep-
tions and not the rules. I can't see it in consumer
class actions or a product-defect case. I would see
no reason to do that."
One of the first cases, launched in 2006, to
address the issue of anonymous representative
plaintiffs, says Naudie, did not resolve favour-
ably for the plaintiffs. In T.L. v. Alberta, 2006
ABQB 104, which dealt with claims regarding
the abuse of minors under the care of child wel-
fare authorities in Alberta, the court held that,
under the province's Class Proceedings Act, the
representative plaintiff had to be identified "un-
less the court orders otherwise."
Another notable example was the use of
pseudonyms in John Doe and Suzie Jones v. Can-
ada. is matter concerned what Health Canada
referred to as an "administrative error," a refer-
ence to a 2013 mailing from the department to
40,000 medical marijuana users across Canada
in envelopes that showed the patients' names and
referred to the Medical Marihuana Program.
e plaintiffs claimed their privacy and safety
had been compromised.
