Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiffs sought to stay their own appeal of an evidentiary ruling while awaiting the outcome of a class action certification hearing.

• Dispute arose over whether affidavit evidence supporting class certification was admissible.

• The chambers judge granted a stay of the appeal, reasoning it could enhance judicial efficiency.

• Respondents argued that the stay would prejudice them and disrupt the sequencing of proceedings.

• The Court of Appeal found no legal or factual error in the chambers judge’s discretionary decision.

• The application to cancel the stay was dismissed, leaving the appeal paused until after certification.

Facts and outcome of the case

In April 2022, the plaintiffs, C.D. and Amber Rutherford (a minor represented by a litigation guardian), filed a proposed class action against Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.), along with its Canadian and Instagram subsidiaries. They alleged that Meta's platforms expose minors to harmful content and contribute to social media addiction. The case proceeded toward a certification hearing, the step in class actions where the court determines whether the lawsuit meets the requirements to proceed as a class action.

Before the certification hearing scheduled for June 2024, Meta filed a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ affidavit evidence supporting their certification motion. The case management judge agreed with Meta, ruling much of the evidence inadmissible. In response, the plaintiffs appealed that evidentiary ruling in November 2024.

In early 2025, the plaintiffs applied to stay their own appeal until after the certification hearing. They argued this would avoid unnecessary litigation and that the appeal might become irrelevant depending on the outcome of certification. The chambers judge granted the stay on May 2, 2025.

Meta then brought an application to vary (i.e., cancel) the stay. They contended that the chambers judge had failed to properly weigh the prejudice to them and had overstepped by interfering with the case sequencing already managed at the Supreme Court level. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision delivered orally on June 5, 2025, rejected this argument. The court held that the chambers judge had correctly applied the principles governing appellate stays and had not erred in law or principle.

The application to cancel the stay was therefore dismissed. This means the plaintiffs' appeal over the evidentiary ruling remains paused and will not proceed until the certification hearing is completed. No damages or costs were awarded in this decision, as it focused solely on a procedural issue. The broader class action, including the question of Meta's liability, remains pending.