Law360 Canada (July 16, 2026, 9:45 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants from an order dismissing their application to certify a class proceeding arising from Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) enforcement of the Fairy Creek injunction. They alleged that the RCMP, in enforcing the injunction during logging protests in the Fairy Creek watershed, adopted an Exclusion Zone Policy that restricted public access to the injunction area and a Catch-and-Release Policy under which persons were detained or arrested and later released without charges. They sought certification of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and tort claims on behalf of persons whose movement was impeded, who were detained or arrested, or whose persons or property were searched or seized in connection with enforcement of the injunction. The judge held that the claims disclosed a cause of action but found that the appellants failed to establish an identifiable class, common issues, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure. On appeal, the appellants argued that the judge wrongly excluded affidavits sworn for the Media Access and Extension applications, failed to consider findings made in other applications, and erred in his analysis of the certification requirements. The respondents submitted that the judge made no error.

HELD: Appeal allowed. The Court held that the judge erred in refusing to admit affidavits sworn for the Media Access application, and in failing to recognize the evidentiary significance of findings made in that proceeding for the limited purpose of establishing some basis in fact. The judge also erred in concluding that the proposed class was overbroad because some members might ultimately have no claim by reason of their individual circumstances. The class was sufficiently objective and rationally connected to the issues, subject to excluding persons convicted of contempt of court arising from the same occasion. The Court held that there was some basis in fact for the existence of an Exclusion Zone Policy, but not for the alleged Catch-and-Release Policy. The Charter issues tied to the Exclusion Zone Policy were common issues because their resolution would advance the claims of all class members, even though individual issues would remain. The judge further erred in holding that a class proceeding was not preferable. The Court held that a class proceeding better promoted access to justice and behaviour modification. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to determine whether the appellants were appropriate representative plaintiffs and to proceed on the basis of the class definition and common issues identified by the Court.

Dang v. Canada (Attorney General), [2026] B.C.J. No. 988, British Columbia Court of Appeal, P. Abrioux, G.B. Gomery and H. MacNaughton JJ.A., May 20, 2026. Digest No. Law360CDA-July132026004