Rhodes v. Compagnie Amway Canada

Rhodes v. Compagnie Amway Canada

The Court exercised its case-management discretion and concluded that, given the plaintiffs had not yet filed a certification motion and the arbitration motion could dispose of or narrow the action, the defendants' motion to stay and compel arbitration must be heard and determined prior to any certification motion.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 FC 498
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheryl Rhodes; Plaintiff: Kerry Murphy; Defendant: Compagnie Amway Canada; Defendant: Amway Global
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Proposed Class Proceeding Under the Competition Act / Pre Certification Motion for Directions and Scheduling of Jurisdictional Motion
Outcome
Court ordered that the defendants' motion to stay and to compel arbitration be heard before any certification motion and scheduled that hearing; costs to follow the cause.
Legal Topics
Certification of Class Action, Stay to Arbitrate, Jurisdictional Challenge, Case Management and Scheduling
Source Language
english
Competition Law Class Actions Arbitration Law Procedural Law Certification of Class Action Stay to Arbitrate Jurisdictional Challenge Case Management and Scheduling

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheryl Rhodes

Plaintiff

Kerry Murphy

Plaintiff

Compagnie Amway Canada

Defendant

Amway Global

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Proposed Class Proceeding Under the Competition Act / Pre Certification Motion for Directions and Scheduling of Jurisdictional Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction because of a mandatory arbitration agreement
  2. 2 Whether jurisdictional/arbitration challenges must be decided prior to class certification or may be decided at certification
  3. 3 How the Court should manage sequencing of preliminary motions in class proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its case-management discretion and concluded that, given the plaintiffs had not yet filed a certification motion and the arbitration motion could dispose of or narrow the action, the defendants' motion to stay and compel arbitration must be heard and determined prior to any certification motion.

Court Disposition

Court ordered that the defendants' motion to stay and to compel arbitration be heard before any certification motion and scheduled that hearing; costs to follow the cause.

Orders

  • Defendants' Motion to Stay and to Compel Arbitration dated April 7, 2010 to be heard in Montréal on June 18, 2010 at 9:30 am for a maximum of 3.5 hours unless otherwise directed
  • Defendants' Amended Motion Record recognized as filed and served