it makes up a very limited aspect of the liability question and even though many individual issues
remain to be decided after its resolution.38 Even a significant level of individuality does not
preclude a finding of commonality.39A common issue need not dispose of the litigation; it is
sufficient if it is an issue of fact or law common to all claims and its resolution will advance the
 From a factual perspective, the plaintiff must show that there is some basis in fact that: (a)
the proposed common issue actually exists; and (b) the proposed issue can be answered in common
across the entire class, which is to say that the Plaintiff must adduce some evidence demonstrating
that there is a colourable claim or a rational connection between the Class Members and the
proposed common issues.41 The plaintiff must establish some basis in fact for the existence of the
common issues in the sense that there is some factual basis for the claims made to which the
common issues are connected.42
General Principles – Preferable Procedure
 Under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the fourth criterion for certification is the
preferable procedure criterion. Preferability captures the ideas of: (a) whether a class proceeding
would be an appropriate method of advancing the claims of the class members; and (b) whether a
class proceeding would be better than other methods such as joinder, test cases, consolidation, and
any other means of resolving the dispute.43
 In AIC Limited v. Fischer,44 the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that the preferability
analysis must be conducted through the lens of judicial economy, behaviour modification, and
access to justice. Thus, for a class proceeding to be the preferable procedure for the resolution of
the claims of a given class, it must represent a fair, efficient, and manageable procedure that is
preferable to any alternative method of resolving the claims.45 Whether a class proceeding is the
preferable procedure is judged by reference to the purposes of access to justice, behaviour
modification, and judicial economy and by taking into account the importance of the common
issues to the claims as a whole, including the individual issues.46 To satisfy the preferable
procedure criterion, the proposed representative plaintiff must show some basis in fact that the
proposed class action would: (a) be a fair, efficient and manageable method of advancing the claim;
(2004), 73 O.R. (3d) 401 at para. 52 (C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. ref'd,  S.C.C.A. No. 50, rev'g (2003),
65 O.R. (3d) 492 (Div. Ct.); Carom v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd. (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 236 at para. 42 (C.A.).
38 Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General), (2004), 73 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. ref'd, 
S.C.C.A. No. 50, rev'g (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 492 (Div. Ct.).
39 Hodge v. Neinstein, 2017 ONCA 494 at para. 114; Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC
57 at para. 112; Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, 2001 SCC 46 at para. 54.
40 Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp.,  B.C.J. No. 2237 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. ref’d  S.C.C.A.
41 Jensen v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 2021 FC 1185; Kuiper v. Cook (Canada) Inc., 2020 ONSC 128 (Div.
42 Simpson v. Facebook, Inc. 2022 ONSC 1284 at para. 25 (Div. Ct.); Jensen v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 2021
FC 1185; Singer v. Schering-Plough Canada Inc., 2010 ONSC 42 at para. 140.
43 Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank, 2007 ONCA 334 at para. 69, leave to appeal to SCC ref’d  S.C.C.A. No.
346; Hollick v. Toronto (City), 2001 SCC 68.
44 2013 SCC 69 at paras. 24-38.
45 Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 73 O.R. (3d) 401 at para. 52 (C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C.
ref'd,  S.C.C.A. No. 50, rev'g (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 492 (Div. Ct.).
46 Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank, 2007 ONCA 334; Hollick v. Toronto (City), 2001 SCC 68.