( i) The statement that opting out would not prevent franchisees from individually or collectively pursuing their
rights was misleading. It failed to address the reality, to
which I averted in my decision on certification, at para. 111,
that individual claims by franchisees would be impractical.
Collective pursuit would almost certainly be ineffective
without the clout of a class action, given that Pet Valu continues to vigorously contest the franchisees’ rights to share
in volume rebates.
 The CPVF telephone campaign and website were an unabashed attempt to destroy the class action. The campaign made
no pretence of giving franchisees an opportunity to make a
private, considered and informed decision. It made no attempt to
provide them with any information concerning the positive
aspects of the class action. While expressing concern about franchisees being “confused or misinformed”, the CPVF gave them
more misinformation and added to the confusion. In an environment in which communications to the class by the parties
had been strictly curtailed at the request of the parties and with
the court’s approval, the CPVF was able to use its influence and
its opinions to advance what it perceived to be the interests of
franchisees, which it aligned with the interests of the franchisor.
 I now turn to the applicable principles.
 The CPA contemplates that important notices to class
members will be approved by the court. It requires that the representative plaintiff must give notice of certification to class
members (s. 17). Section 19 provides that “at any time in a class
proceeding, the court may order any party to give such notice as
it considers necessary to protect the interests of any class member or party or to ensure the fair conduct of the proceeding.”
Section 20 stipulates that such notices must be approved by
 The right of a party to opt out is fundamental to the
court’s jurisdiction over unnamed class members. It is also fundamental to preserve the legal rights of those who wish to exercise those rights other than through the class action: see Sauer
v. Canada (Attorney General),  O.J. No. 3381, 2010 ONSC
4399 (S.C.J.); Currie v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd.
(2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 321,  O.J. No. 506 (C.A.), at para. 28.
 This court has consistently spoken of the importance of a
fair and informed opt-out process in which class members are
protected from coercion and from misleading, incomplete, biased