Potter v. Bank of Canada

Potter v. Bank of Canada

The claim for direct equitable allocation and distribution to class members was properly struck out as plain and obvious because beneficiaries have received all plan entitlements and the correct trust-law remedy is restitution to the Plan; s.37(a) of the Class Proceedings Act does not preclude bringing the remaining claims as a class proceeding simply because a representative proceeding might be available under the Rules of Civil Procedure or because the PBSA gives the Superintendent certain powers; therefore the strike of the direct payments claim is affirmed but the motion to bar the class action under s.37(a) is dismissed and the action may proceed under the Class Proceedings Act for...

Citation
2007 ONCA 234
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Alan Hay Potter; Plaintiff/appellant: Ken Woo; Plaintiff/appellant: Kwong Eng; Plaintiff/appellant: Joseph Armand Alphonse Bouchard; Defendant/respondent: Bank of Canada; Defendant/respondent: CIBC Mellon Trust Company
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Class Proceeding Under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Motion Decision (rule 21 Motion)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: strike-out of direct payments claim upheld; declaration that s.37(a) bars the class action dismissed; matter may proceed under the Class Proceedings Act as to remaining claims.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Restitution to Trust, Direct Distribution to Beneficiaries, Representative Proceedings Under Rule 10, Rule 21 Strike Out, Section 37(a) Class Proceedings Act, Remedies in Equity, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Civil Trusts and Fiduciary Law Pension Law Class Actions Contract Law Equity Procedural Law Breach of Trust +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Hay Potter

Plaintiff/appellant

Ken Woo

Plaintiff/appellant

Kwong Eng

Plaintiff/appellant

Joseph Armand Alphonse Bouchard

Plaintiff/appellant

Bank of Canada

Defendant/respondent

CIBC Mellon Trust Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Class Proceeding Under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Motion Decision (rule 21 Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleaded claim for direct equitable allocation and distribution to class members (direct payments) should be struck out under Rule 21 as plain and obvious
  2. 2 Whether s.37(a) of the Class Proceedings Act precludes the action from proceeding as a class action because the remaining claims can be brought in representative form under Rule 10 or under PBSA s.33.2(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for direct equitable allocation and distribution to class members was properly struck out as plain and obvious because beneficiaries have received all plan entitlements and the correct trust-law remedy is restitution to the Plan; s.37(a) of the Class Proceedings Act does not preclude bringing the remaining claims as a class proceeding simply because a representative proceeding might be available under the Rules of Civil Procedure or because the PBSA gives the Superintendent certain powers; therefore the strike of the direct payments claim is affirmed but the motion to bar the class action under s.37(a) is dismissed and the action may proceed under the Class Proceedings Act for...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: strike-out of direct payments claim upheld; declaration that s.37(a) bars the class action dismissed; matter may proceed under the Class Proceedings Act as to remaining claims.

Orders

  • Direct payments claim struck out (Rule 21 upheld)
  • Motion seeking declaration that s.37(a) precludes class action dismissed