Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc.

Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc.

Recasting the class definition and common issues on appeal was permissible where it did not prejudice the defendant; the Divisional Court correctly certified the action because the revised common issues present legal questions of general application that would significantly advance the litigation and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 ONCA 248
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Keatley Surveying Ltd.; Defendant (appellant): Teranet Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Class Proceeding Certification Appeal (copyright Infringement) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Divisional Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; certification of the class proceeding by the Divisional Court upheld
Legal Topics
Certification, Copyright Ownership, Deemed Consent, Public Policy Defence, Representative Plaintiff, Preferable Procedure, Litigation Plan
Source Language
english
Copyright Class Actions Civil Procedure Certification Copyright Ownership Deemed Consent Public Policy Defence Representative Plaintiff +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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keatley Surveying Ltd.

Plaintiff (respondent)

Teranet Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Class Proceeding Certification Appeal (copyright Infringement) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Divisional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Divisional Court erred by permitting recasting of class definition and common issues on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the action meets certification requirements (identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, representative plaintiff)
  3. 3 Whether a class requires more than the representative plaintiff to be 'desirous' of proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

Recasting the class definition and common issues on appeal was permissible where it did not prejudice the defendant; the Divisional Court correctly certified the action because the revised common issues present legal questions of general application that would significantly advance the litigation and the representative plaintiff is adequate despite idiosyncratic circumstances; proof that class members are 'desirous' of litigation is not required and the litigation plan was adequate at this stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; certification of the class proceeding by the Divisional Court upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Class proceeding certification as certified by the Divisional Court is maintained