Sun Life Class Action Update

Update May 20, 2026

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this class action. That settlement is subject to Court approval, a process which will proceed on a schedule to be set by the Court. More information will be available here for Class Members after June 1, 2026.

Please note that we are not accepting phone calls at this time while we transition to a new phone service. You can reach us via email at SunLifeClassAction@complexlaw.ca

Background

In September 2018, the Court of Appeal of Ontario reversed the motion judge’s decision, and ordered certification of the action. Click here for a copy of the reasons.

The terms of the certification order, including the class definition and wording of the common issues, were remitted back to the motion judge. The certification order was entered on November 20, 2020, and appointed six representative plaintiffs, and Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers P.C. as class counsel to represent the class, which is defined as:

  1. The “Universal Plus Class” is defined as persons who owned or own a Universal Plus policy sold by MetLife in Canada during the period 1987 through 1998, including any successor owners of the policy.
  2. The “Flexiplus Class” is defined as persons who owned or own a Flexiplus policy sold by MetLife in Canada during the period 1987 through 1998, including any successor owners of the policy whose monthly costs of insurance and or monthly administration fee was increased in one or more of 2001, 2006, or 2015 or the ninth year of the policy.
  3. The “Optimet Class” is defined as persons who owned or own an Optimet policy sold by MetLife in Canada during the period 1987 through 1998, including any successor owners of the policy where an increased cost of insurance rate was charged and paid commencing in year nine (9) of the policy.

The certified common issues are:

  1. Was it a term of the Flexiplus policy that the cost of insurance (“COI”) rate may be adjusted based on specified factors. If so, is Sun Life liable for breach of contract if increases were based in whole or in part on other factors?
  2. Was it a term of the Universal Flexiplus policies that Administrative Fees may be adjusted based on factors related to the cost of administering the policies? If so, is Sun Life liable for breach of contract if increases were based, in whole or in part, on other factors?
  3. Was it a term of the Optimet policy that the cost of insurance (“COI”) rate may be adjusted based on specified factors. If so, is Sun Life liable for breach of contract if increases were based, in whole or in part, on other factors?
  4. Was it a term of the Universal Plus, Flexiplus, and OptiMet policies that the “Maximum Premium” amount set out in the policies was the highest amount of premium that the policyholder would ever be required to pay for the policy in any year, in order to prevent lapse of the policy? If so, are the plaintiffs entitled to a declaration to that effect?
  5. If the answer to any of questions 1, 2, or 3 is that Sun Life breached the contract of insurance, did Sun Life administer the policies in a manner, including violating section 439 of the Insurance Act, S.O. 1990, c. I.8 (prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices) such that the breach of contract was concealed?

Additional Court attendances were necessary to update the certification notices and litigation plan, which were finalized in early 2021.

On March 30, 2021, Sun Life delivered a motion for summary judgment to have Common Issues #1-4 determined by the Court before trial. A timetable was set by the Court for the exchange of materials, as well as documentary discovery and oral cross-examinations, to take place before the summary judgment motion is heard. In May 2022, the plaintiffs delivered their cross-motion for summary judgment to have Common Issues 1, 2, 4, and 5 determined. The summary judgment motion was scheduled for April 2026.