Class-action lawsuits targeted cybersecurity, worker rights in 2021

Class-action lawsuits help publicize issues and offer consumer protection, lawyer Margaret Waddell, a partner with Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation noted in 2021.

She opened the year telling LegalMattersCanada.ca that a lawsuit targeting Westjet baggage fees that were charged between 2014-19 should be a novel test of the Competition Act. “Airport tariff cases are complicated because this is an entirely different regime than most of us are familiar with. Kudos to the people who figured this one out.” Baggage fee lawsuit pushes the envelope in consumer class action

Suit alleged lack of safe drinking water

Class-action lawsuits brought against the federal government over the lack of safe drinking water on First Nations lands are another example of the effectiveness of turning to the courts when political options fail, she noted in June. Drinking water lawsuits could get politicians back on track

In August, Waddell said a cybersecurity lawsuit currently before the courts could be the catalyst in defining and expanding the interpretation of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. “The application of intrusion upon seclusion to internet hacking is a new and developing law. We should not throw out the claim on a pleadings motion when it really ought to be decided on a full merits-based argument. This is on the top of everybody’s radar in the privacy field. It’s an important issue, as it should be.” Cybersecurity case could ultimately help shape privacy litigation

Later that month, she weighed in after as many as 366,359 Uber couriers in Ontario got the green light to proceed with a $400-million class-action lawsuit alleging that they are employees, and not independent contractors in a fight that has gone on for years and will undoubtedly take many more to resolve. Don’t expect a quick result from the Uber class-action lawsuit

Federal Court decision brings questions

Waddell said September’s Federal Court of Appeal decision addressing certification of a defendant’s class action demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of the essential differences between a plaintiff’s class action and a defendant’s class proceeding. “It seems as though the judges deciding this case did not have a grasp of the practicalities of class action litigation. They looked at the plain-word language of the Class Proceedings Act and then trying to reverse engineer it to fit a defendant’s class, without articulating any understanding how the defence or prosecution of class actions works in practice, and without addressing the serious impediments to what they’re proposing.” Reverse class action judgment needs to be reversed

In November, she discussed a $3.44-million settlement in a cyber hacking case that her firm had a hand in negotiating. She noted organizations that fail to adequately safeguard their clients’ personal information risk financial and reputational consequences. Failing to adequately safeguard data results in $3.44M settlement

She shared her opinion of the certification of a lawsuit in a $30-million Ponzi scheme, calling it an example of an “inventive and entrepreneurial” class-action claim. “Class action claims such as this can be effective in causing institutions to adopt more effective preventative consumer protection measures because not only do they put the spotlight on the weaknesses in current practices, they encourage behaviour modification to avoid future class proceedings,” Waddell noted in December. Ponzi scheme class-action lawsuit an ‘inventive’ brand of litigation