Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton

Under Rule 42 a class action is permissible where the class is clearly defined, common issues exist, success for one means success for all on those issues, and the representative is adequate; courts must balance efficiency and fairness in exercising discretion, and individualized discovery of class members is not automatic but requires court-ordered necessity; applying this test the Court allowed the class action to proceed and limited discovery to examination of representatives as of right, with other discovery only on showing of reasonable necessity.

Citation
2001 SCC 46
Parties
Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc.; Representative Plaintiff/respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Muh-Min Lin; Representative Plaintiff/respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Hoi-Wah Wu; Defendant/appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Joseph Dutton; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: The Royal Trust Company; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Arthur Andersen & Co.; Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Ernst & Young
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Class Action Appeal Under Alberta Rules of Court (rule 42) / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Class Certification, Representative Actions, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Discovery of Class Members, Notice and Opt Out
Source Language
English
Class Actions Civil Procedure Equity Fiduciary Duty Discovery Class Certification Representative Actions Breach of Fiduciary Duty +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc.

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Muh-Min Lin

Representative Plaintiff/respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Hoi-Wah Wu

Representative Plaintiff/respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Joseph Dutton

Defendant/appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

The Royal Trust Company

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Arthur Andersen & Co.

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Ernst & Young

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Class Action Appeal Under Alberta Rules of Court (rule 42) / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proper standard was applied in determining if plaintiffs satisfied Rule 42 for a class action
  2. 2 Whether the courts below erred in denying defendants’ motion to strike the representative claim under Rule 42
  3. 3 Whether defendants are entitled to full oral and documentary discovery of all class members

Ratio Decidendi

Under Rule 42 a class action is permissible where the class is clearly defined, common issues exist, success for one means success for all on those issues, and the representative is adequate; courts must balance efficiency and fairness in exercising discretion, and individualized discovery of class members is not automatic but requires court-ordered necessity; applying this test the Court allowed the class action to proceed and limited discovery to examination of representatives as of right, with other discovery only on showing of reasonable necessity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Investors permitted to proceed as a class under Rule 42 of the Alberta Rules of Court
  • Defendants entitled to examine the representative plaintiffs as of right