Access to Justice: distributing fixed litigation costs amongst a large number of class members enables claims to be pursued that would otherwise be too costly for any one class member to pursue
AIC Limited v Fischer- test for assessing whether this purpose served: (1) what are the barriers to access to justice created in this context; (2) what is the potential for a class action to address those barriers; (3) what are the alternatives to a class proceeding; (4) do those alternatives address those barriers; (5) how do those proceedings compare in advancing access to justice
Hollick: evidence of alternative avenues may negate a claim for access to justice, or evidence that objectives would be better served through individual claims
Hollick: failed here, because city of toronto set up “no-fault” Small Claims Trust Fund as an avenue of individual redress for noise/physical pollution complaints. Found to be much more efficient/quick means of redress. Appellant made argument individual monetary claims may be so small there is a risk of judicial loss (via claimants opting to simply not pursue any redress), however despite existence of Small Claims Trust Fund, not claims made/pursued. Hinted that class of affected plaintiffs so small as to be non-existent, or so large, that would make more sense to pursue an individual action.
