Clark v. Energy Brands Inc.

Clark v. Energy Brands Inc.

The court exercised its discretion to defer the defendants' summary trial application on constitutional grounds until after the certification application because the general rule favors certification first, the defendants' constitutional challenge lacked apparent strength in light of prior B.C. decisions (Wakelam, Unlu), the plaintiff would be prejudiced without discovery, and proceeding with the summary trial first would likely cause delay, appeals and inefficient 'litigating in slices.'

Citation
2012 BCSC 557
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Clark; Defendants: Energy Brands Inc. (DBA Glaceau) and Coca-Cola Ltd.; Intervener: Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Class Proceeding Under the Class Proceedings Act (consumer Protection) / Pre Certification; Application for Directions; Certification Application Pending and Defendants' Summary Trial Application Filed
Outcome
Defendants' summary trial application based on constitutional grounds deferred until after the plaintiff's certification application; defendants ordered to file a response to the certification application within 60 days.
Legal Topics
BPCPA S.172 Deceptive Practices, Paramountcy Doctrine, Interjurisdictional Immunity, Natural Health Products Regulations, Pre Certification Motions, Certification Timing
Source Language
English
Class Actions Consumer Protection Constitutional Law Regulatory/administrative Law Product Labelling Law BPCPA S.172 Deceptive Practices Paramountcy Doctrine Interjurisdictional Immunity +3 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Clark

Plaintiff

Energy Brands Inc. (DBA Glaceau) and Coca-Cola Ltd.

Defendants

Attorney General of British Columbia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Class Proceeding Under the Class Proceedings Act (consumer Protection) / Pre Certification; Application for Directions; Certification Application Pending and Defendants' Summary Trial Application Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' summary trial application raising constitutional inapplicability of the BPCPA should be heard prior to the certification application
  2. 2 Whether the BPCPA is constitutionally inapplicable to products regulated as natural health products by virtue of paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' pre-certification application has sufficient strength and efficiency benefits to justify hearing it before certification

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to defer the defendants' summary trial application on constitutional grounds until after the certification application because the general rule favors certification first, the defendants' constitutional challenge lacked apparent strength in light of prior B.C. decisions (Wakelam, Unlu), the plaintiff would be prejudiced without discovery, and proceeding with the summary trial first would likely cause delay, appeals and inefficient 'litigating in slices.'

Court Disposition

Defendants' summary trial application based on constitutional grounds deferred until after the plaintiff's certification application; defendants ordered to file a response to the certification application within 60 days.

Orders

  • Defendants' summary trial application on constitutional grounds will be set for hearing, if necessary, following the plaintiff's certification application
  • Defendants must file their response to the plaintiff's notice of application for certification within 60 days, with liberty to apply