Nelson v. Hoops L.P.

Nelson v. Hoops L.P.

The chambers judge correctly held the amended statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action in breach of contract based on implied terms; although an arguable claim in fraudulent misrepresentation existed, the chambers judge properly refused certification because individual issues of knowledge, reliance and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 BCCA 174
Parties
Appellant; Respondent on Cross Appeal; Plaintiff: David G. Nelson; Respondent; Defendant: Hoops L.P., a Limited Partnership; Respondent; Appellant on Cross Appeal; Defendant: Michael Heisley
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Certification Under the Class Proceedings Act; Civil Claim for Fraudulent and Negligent Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract / Appeal From Chambers Judge Order Dismissing Application for Certification
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Certification, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Implied Contractual Terms, Preferable Procedure
Source Language
english
Class Actions Contract Law Tort Misrepresentation Civil Procedure Certification Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David G. Nelson

Appellant; Respondent on Cross Appeal; Plaintiff

Hoops L.P., a Limited Partnership

Respondent; Defendant

Michael Heisley

Respondent; Appellant on Cross Appeal; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Certification Under the Class Proceedings Act; Civil Claim for Fraudulent and Negligent Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract / Appeal From Chambers Judge Order Dismissing Application for Certification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended statement of claim disclosed a cause of action for breach of contract based on implied terms arising from public representations
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim disclosed an actionable fraudulent misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for fair and efficient resolution of the common issues under s.4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge correctly held the amended statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action in breach of contract based on implied terms; although an arguable claim in fraudulent misrepresentation existed, the chambers judge properly refused certification because individual issues of knowledge, reliance and quantification of damages predominated over common issues and the class members' compensatory losses were likely trivial; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the refusal to certify.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed