This response examines class authorization reform in Quebec, suggesting that empirical analysis is crucial for legislative changes.
In this short piece, the author responds (belatedly) to a judicial call for reform to the class authorization process in Quebec. As long as authorization continues to be required, any teeth added to the process will only serve to reduce incentives to bring class actions and increase upfront costs without necessarily cutting back on delays. On the other hand, removing authorization as a compulsory step could reduce the need for duplicative procedures and lighten the load on the judiciary without compromising the viability of class actions as a means of redress. Most importantly, though, legislative reforms need to be guided not only by judicial intuition, but also by considerably more empirical analysis of the existing regime than is currently available. How else can we adequately predict and target their outcomes?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patrick Visintini (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: