Court of King's Bench Highlights Challenges of Certifying Defamation Claim as Class Proceeding

Summary

Jones v Mironiuk, 2026 ABKB 529 provides useful guidance on class certification requirements under Alberta's Class Proceedings Act ("CPA"), particularly with respect to the need for an objectively identifiable class and the requirement that a class proceeding be the preferable procedure for resolving the dispute.

Background

In Jones v Mironiuk, 2026 ABKB 529, the Alberta Court of King's Bench dismissed an application to certify a proposed class proceeding based on an alleged defamation claim.

The proposed representative plaintiff, a residential school survivor, alleged that statements made during a sermon delivered by a Catholic priest in July 2021 were defamatory of residential school survivors who had publicly spoken about suspected unmarked graves and non-natural deaths at residential schools. The plaintiff sought to advance the claim on behalf of a proposed class of residential school survivors who had "spoken out publicly" on those issues.

The defendants did not dispute that the statements had been made. However, they argued that the statements were not directed at the plaintiff or any identifiable group of individuals and that the proposed proceeding was unsuitable for certification because individual issues would overwhelm any common issues.

Class Certification Under Alberta's Class Proceedings Act

Justice Armstrong considered the application under section 5 of Alberta's Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c C-16.5 (“CPA”), which requires a proposed class proceeding to satisfy five criteria before certification may be granted. The plaintiff must establish:

  1. the pleadings disclose a cause of action;
  2. there is an identifiable class of two or more persons;
  3. the claims raise common issues;
  4. a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for resolving those issues; and
  5. there is an appropriate representative plaintiff.

The Court found that the plaintiff had established a viable cause of action in defamation and that the proposed representative plaintiff was capable of representing the interests of the class. However, the application ultimately failed on two of the certification requirements.

Why Class Certification Was Refused

  • No Identifiable Class

The first difficulty arose from the plaintiff’s proposed class definition.

The proposed class consisted of residential school survivors who had "spoken out publicly" about suspected unmarked graves or non-natural deaths at residential schools. The Court found that this description lacked sufficiently objective criteria to determine who belonged within the proposed class.

Justice Armstrong noted that the phrase "spoken out publicly" could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It could refer to individuals who had participated in media interviews, public advocacy, speeches, or publications. Equally, it could be interpreted more broadly to include individuals who discussed the subject with only a limited audience. The Court concluded that determining class membership would require individualized inquiries into what was said, when it was said, to whom it was said, and whether the communication was sufficiently public to satisfy the class definition.

As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish an identifiable class within the meaning of section 5(1)(b) of the CPA. The decision reinforces that proposed class definitions must be supported by an objective and administratively workable mechanism that enables the Court to determine who is entitled to notice of the proceeding and who will ultimately be bound by its outcome.

  • Individualized Defamation Issues Overwhelmed Common Issues

The second and more significant obstacle concerned the requirement that a class proceeding be the preferable procedure for resolving the dispute.

The Court accepted that certain common issues existed. In particular, questions relating to the publication of the statements and whether they were made maliciously could be determined on a class-wide basis. However, the Court concluded that those issues did not materially advance the litigation.

Justice Armstrong emphasized that defamation claims are overwhelmingly individualistic in nature. Even if the proposed common issues were resolved in favour of the plaintiff, each class member would still be required to establish that the impugned statements referred to them and that their individual reputation was harmed. Those issues depended upon the personal circumstances of each claimant, including their public profile, their connection to the subject matter of the statements, and the extent to which an ordinary person would understand the statements as referring to them.

The Court concluded that these individualized inquiries were not merely issues relating to damages. Rather, they were central to liability itself. Accordingly, any efficiencies gained through the determination of common issues would be outweighed by the need for extensive individual hearings. Consequently, the Court concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the dispute.

The certification application was therefore dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • Each of the certification requirements set out in sections 5(1)(a) through (e) of Alberta's CPA must be independently satisfied. Failure on a single criterion is sufficient to defeat certification.
  • A proposed class must be defined using an objective and workable mechanism. Ambiguous concepts such as individuals who have "spoken out publicly" may be insufficient where membership cannot be readily determined.
  • The existence of common issues does not necessarily make a class proceeding preferable. Courts will closely examine whether resolution of the common issues meaningfully advances the litigation as a whole.
  • Defamation claims may present unique certification challenges, as the core elements of liability often require individualized assessments of reference and reputational harm. Class resolution may be difficult to achieve through a class proceeding given the inherently individual nature of a defamation claim.