Comments
We, Class Counsel at the time of the above NOTICE, state that we believe that the law allows this action to be reconstituted, with different representative plaintiffs. The organizer of the original class action is actively pursuing that. Contact information for the reconstituted action will be posted here, when it becomes available.
If you think that you have a claim or potential claim in the previous class action and have any questions, you should seek legal advice. You may contact us at the phone number or email address on this website, or legal counsel of your choice.
Bear in mind that there are time limits on suing. So, don’t delay making contact and getting advice from a lawyer. However, when the wrongdoing is concealed from those injured the limitation period is often tolled (meaning, it stops running). In this case, the missing evidence at the CBC was investigated by John W Grace, the Access to Information Commissioner of Canada. Mr. Grace, in his report to Minister Dingwall, then Federal Minister of Health, dated in January 1997 (but not made public for some time), on the destruction of the records by HMQ officials at the CBC between 1983-1989, states it was not “mere coincidence that the decision was taken in the context of concern about liability issues associated with tainted blood products […]”.
It is noteworthy that the first case to strike a class action under this new section 29.1 over procedural delay was decided by Justice Edward Belobaba on January 14, 2022, in Bourque v. Insight Productions, 2022 ONSC 174, because there he wrote: “… in the vast majority of cases, the dismissed proceeding can be refiled against the same defendants with just a change in the proposed representative plaintiff.” This assumes that time has not run out, presumably it had not in that case. This judge’s obiter dicta (a statement by-the-way) is a helpful precedent from the trial court level, but could be overturned in other cases by an Appeal Court, or, less likely, disregarded by other trial level judges.
