Finkel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union

Finkel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union

Appeal dismissed: the chambers judge correctly assumed the pleaded facts for certification, the pleadings disclose causes of action for breach of contract and under s.171 BPCPA (it is not plain and obvious those claims are bound to fail), there was some evidentiary basis for common issues arising from the standard form Account Agreement and fee schedule, and a class proceeding was the preferable, manageable procedure; hence certification order was properly upheld.

Citation
2017 BCCA 361
Parties
Respondent / Plaintiff: Eric Finkel; Appellant / Defendant: Coast Capital Savings Credit Union
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Class Action Certification Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Certification Order (certification of Class Proceeding)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; certification order affirmed
Legal Topics
Certification, BPCPA S.171 Causation and Reliance, Breach of Contract, Common Issues, Preferability
Source Language
English
Contract Law Consumer Protection Law Class Actions Competition Law Certification BPCPA S.171 Causation and Reliance Breach of Contract Common Issues +1 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Finkel

Respondent / Plaintiff

Coast Capital Savings Credit Union

Appellant / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Class Action Certification Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Certification Order (certification of Class Proceeding)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do the pleadings disclose a cause of action for breach of contract?
  2. 2 Do the pleadings disclose a cause of action under s.171 of the BPCPA and is reliance required?
  3. 3 Is there some basis in fact for common issues?

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: the chambers judge correctly assumed the pleaded facts for certification, the pleadings disclose causes of action for breach of contract and under s.171 BPCPA (it is not plain and obvious those claims are bound to fail), there was some evidentiary basis for common issues arising from the standard form Account Agreement and fee schedule, and a class proceeding was the preferable, manageable procedure; hence certification order was properly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; certification order affirmed

Orders

  • Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dated March 31, 2016 certifying the action as a class proceeding (as specified by Justice Masuhara) is affirmed