Sibble v. Google LLC

Sibble v. Google LLC

Defendants' responses complied with Rule 7-7 because they contained clear denials under Rule 7-7(2)(a), which require no reasons; alternative objections under Rule 7-7(2)(c) may be tested later at certification; service of notices to admit prior to certification was not contrary to the CPA or the Case Plan Order and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 BCSC 537
Parties
Plaintiff: Harondel J. Sibble; Defendant: Google LLC; Defendant: Google Canada Corporation; Defendant: Alphabet Inc.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Putative Class Action / Pre Certification Application Regarding Notices to Admit (application Heard February 28, 2025)
Outcome
Application dismissed; responses comply with Rule 7-7; defendants awarded costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Notices to Admit (rule 7 7), Admissions and Deemed Admissions, Pre Certification Discovery, Certification Hearing, Cross Examination of Affidavit Evidence, Abuse of Process, Case Management
Source Language
english
Class Actions Civil Procedure Evidence Privacy Law Tort Law Competition and Consumer Protection Law Notices to Admit (rule 7 7) Admissions and Deemed Admissions +5 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harondel J. Sibble

Plaintiff

Google LLC

Defendant

Google Canada Corporation

Defendant

Alphabet Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Putative Class Action / Pre Certification Application Regarding Notices to Admit (application Heard February 28, 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether notices to admit may be served prior to certification in a putative class action
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' response statements complied with Rule 7-7
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' responses were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process and should be struck

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants' responses complied with Rule 7-7 because they contained clear denials under Rule 7-7(2)(a), which require no reasons; alternative objections under Rule 7-7(2)(c) may be tested later at certification; service of notices to admit prior to certification was not contrary to the CPA or the Case Plan Order and was permissible; accordingly the application to strike the responses and to deem admissions is dismissed and defendants awarded costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; responses comply with Rule 7-7; defendants awarded costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Application to strike the Defendants' response statements dismissed
  • No deemed admissions ordered