Court says thousands of hockey abuse claims need workable plan before class action can proceed
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal seeking certification of a class action for alleged decades-long systemic abuse in Canadian major junior hockey, holding that the proposed proceeding is unmanageable and not the preferable procedure for resolving the claims.
Allegations of widespread abuse and systemic negligence
In Carcillo v. Ontario Major Junior Hockey League, 2025 ONCA 652, former players Daniel Carcillo, Garrett Taylor, and Stephen Quirk alleged that, for decades, many young players in major junior hockey leagues endured serious abuse. The allegations included physical and sexual assaults, bullying, harassment, and degrading hazing rituals. The appellants maintained that these practices fostered and normalized a toxic culture of violence and misconduct, making abuse seem acceptable and discouraging victims from reporting what they had suffered. They sought to hold the leagues and all 60 teams accountable for alleged systemic negligence and governance failures.
The proposed class action aimed to represent approximately 15,000 Canadian major junior hockey players from 1975 to the present. The Superior Court denied certification, finding the action unmanageable due to its unprecedented scale and complexity. The motion judge found that the appellants’ counsel had failed to provide a litigation plan capable of addressing the scale and complexity of the case, which prevented the action from being a viable means of achieving the stated goals. The court cited the involvement of 78 defendants across 13 jurisdictions, hundreds of likely third-party claims, highly diverse allegations of abuse, events spanning a 50-year period, complex conflicts-of-law issues, and numerous limitation period defences.
Court emphasizes manageability and litigation planning
On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision, stating, “the proposed class action is of an unprecedented scale and complexity, far greater than that of other systemic negligence class actions previously recognized.” The court held that because no workable litigation plan was offered, the motion judge was justified in finding the action unmanageable and therefore not the preferable procedure. The court clarified that this decision does not rule out the possibility that other class actions—narrower in scope and targeting individual teams, single leagues, or smaller groups of organizations—could be certified and managed effectively. The court also noted that Canadian courts have previously certified systemic negligence class actions involving institutional abuse.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents collectively in the agreed-on amount of $40,000, on an all-inclusive basis. The judgment underscores the importance of manageability and practical litigation planning in large-scale class actions involving allegations of institutional abuse.
