Esheria Esheria Case law
Ask AI Sign in

Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Roy v. Calgary Airport Authority

Competition LawCivil ProcedureClass ActionsJurisdictionStrike Under Rule 221Subject Matter JurisdictionAmendment of Statement of ClaimConsent Order
+1 more
Costs Allocation
Citation
2020 FC 1105
Status
Judgment
Jurisdiction
Canada
Court
Federal Court
Decision
30 November 2020
Posture
Proposed Class Action Under the Competition Act / Consent Order Disposing of a Rule 221 Motion to Strike for Lack of Reasonable Cause of Action and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Language
English
More details
Court
Federal Court
Decision
30 November 2020
Posture
Proposed Class Action Under the Competition Act / Consent Order Disposing of a Rule 221 Motion to Strike for Lack of Reasonable Cause of Action and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Language
English
On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court granted the Moving Defendants' motion and struck the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim against all Defendants under Rule 221(1)(a) because it presently disclosed no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act and the Court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the pleaded causes of action.

Court disposition

Motion granted; Amended Statement of Claim struck against all Defendants for disclosing no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; parties to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • The Statement of Claim is amended in the form attached as Schedule A to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated August 5, 2020.
  • The Moving Defendants’ motion is granted.
  • The Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim is struck against all Defendants pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) as presently disclosing no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act and for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
  • This Order is not an adjudication on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims.
  • This Order is without prejudice to the Plaintiff or any putative class member from continuing, refiling, filing, and/or recommencing any of the claims in the Statement of Claim or Amended Statement of Claim before a provincial superior court.
  • Pursuant to Rule 334.39, all parties to this action shall bear their own costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Brian Roy

Plaintiff

The Calgary Airport Authority

Defendant

Edmonton Regional Airports Authority

Defendant

Fort McMurray Airport Authority

Defendant

Grande Prairie Airport Commission

Defendant

Comox Valley Airport Commission

Defendant

North Peace Airport Services Ltd.

Defendant

Kamloops Airport Authority Society

Defendant

Kamloops Airport Ltd.

Defendant

Prince George Airport Authority Inc.

Defendant

Vancouver Airport Authority

Defendant

Victoria Airport Authority

Defendant

Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc.

Defendant

Greater Moncton International Airport Authority Inc.

Defendant

Gander International Airport Authority Inc.

Defendant

St. John’s International Airport Authority

Defendant

Deer Lake Regional Airport Authority Inc.

Defendant

Halifax International Airport Authorithy

Defendant

Hamilton International Airport Limited

Defendant

Greater London International Airports Authority

Defendant

Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority

Defendant

Sault Ste. Marie Airport Development Corporation

Defendant

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Defendant

Aéroports de Montréal

Defendant

AeroporT International de Mont Tremblant Inc

Defendant

Aéroport de Québec Inc.

Defendant

Regina Airport Authority

Defendant

Saskatoon Airport Authority

Defendant

Nanaimo Airport Commission

Defendant

Thompson Regional Airport Authority

Defendant

Fredericton International Airport Authority

Defendant

Saint John Airport Inc.

Defendant

Northern New Brunswick Airport Authority

Defendant

J.A. Douglas McCurdy Sydney Airport

Defendant

Sydney Airport Authority

Defendant

Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc.

Defendant

Charlottetown Airport Authority Inc.

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Docket Number: 519

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Proposed Class Action Under the Competition Act / Consent Order Disposing of a Rule 221 Motion to Strike for Lack of Reasonable Cause of Action and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

  1. 01

    Whether the Amended Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act

  2. 02

    Whether the Federal Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the pleaded causes of action

  3. 03

    Whether the Amended Statement of Claim should be struck under Rule 221(1)(a)

Party arguments

Applicant
The Plaintiff sought to amend the Statement of Claim to proceed with a proposed class action alleging contraventions of the Competition Act and maintained that the amended pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action.
Respondent
The Moving Defendants argued that the Amended Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act, that the Federal Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims, and moved to strike the pleadings pursuant to Rule 221.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Federal Courts Rules, Rule 221(1)(a)

    Court may strike pleadings that disclose no reasonable cause of action

  2. 02

    Federal Courts Rules, Rule 334.39

    Parties to bear their own costs where ordered

  3. 03

    Competition Act (RSC, 1985, c. C-34)

    Competition Act governs federal competition law and defines statutory causes of action

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court granted the Moving Defendants' motion and struck the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim against all Defendants under Rule 221(1)(a) because it presently disclosed no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act and the Court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the pleaded causes of action.

Obiter and limits

  • The Order is not an adjudication on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims.
  • The Order is without prejudice to the Plaintiff or any putative class member from continuing, refiling, filing, and/or recommencing any of the claims before a provincial superior court.

Court disposition

Motion granted; Amended Statement of Claim struck against all Defendants for disclosing no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; parties to bear their own costs.

  • The Statement of Claim is amended in the form attached as Schedule A to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated August 5, 2020.
  • The Moving Defendants’ motion is granted.
  • The Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim is struck against all Defendants pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) as presently disclosing no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act and for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
  • This Order is not an adjudication on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims.
  • This Order is without prejudice to the Plaintiff or any putative class member from continuing, refiling, filing, and/or recommencing any of the claims in the Statement of Claim or Amended Statement of Claim before a provincial superior court.
  • Pursuant to Rule 334.39, all parties to this action shall bear their own costs.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 30 November 2020

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 30 November 2020

2020 FC 1105

Roy v. Calgary Airport Authority Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-11-30 Neutral citation 2020 FC 1105 File numbers T-519-19 Notes A correction was made on December 8, 2020. Decision Content Date: 20201130 Docket: T-519-19 Citation: 2020 FC 1105 Vancouver, British Columbia, November 30, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McVeigh

PROPOSED CLASS ACTION BETWEEN:

BRIAN ROY Plaintiff and

THE CALGARY AIRPORT AUTHORITY

EDMONTON REGIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY

FORT MCMURRAY AIRPORT AUTHORITY

GRANDE PRAIRIE AIRPORT COMMISSION

COMOX VALLEY AIRPORT COMMISSION NORTH PEACE AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.

KAMLOOPS AIRPORT AUTHORITY SOCIETY KAMLOOPS AIRPORT LTD. PRINCE GEORGE AIRPORT AUTHORITY INC.

VANCOUVER AIRPORT AUTHORITY

VICTORIA AIRPORT AUTHORITY WINNIPEG AIRPORTS AUTHORITY INC. GREATER MONCTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY INC. GANDER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY INC. ST. JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY DEER LAKE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY INC.

HALIFAX INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITHY

HAMILTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED

GREATER LONDON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY SAULT STE. MARIE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL

AEROPORT INTERNATIONAL DE MONT TREMBLANT INC AÉROPORT DE QUÉBEC INC.

REGINA AIRPORT AUTHORITY

SASKATOON AIRPORT AUTHORITY

NANAIMO AIRPORT COMMISSION

THOMPSON REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

FREDERICTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY SAINT JOHN AIRPORT INC.

NORTHERN NEW BRUNSWICK AIRPORT AUTHORITY J.A. DOUGLAS MCCURDY SYDNEY AIRPORT

SYDNEY AIRPORT AUTHORITY YOUR QUICK GATEWAY (WINDSOR) INC. CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT AUTHORITY INC. Defendants

CONSENT ORDER UPON motion by the Plaintiff to amend the Statement of claim dated March 25, 2019. in the form attached as Schedule “A” to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated August 5, 2020; AND UPON motion by all of the Defendants, except Kamloops Airport Authority Society, Grande Prairie Airport Commission, and Thompson Regional Airport Authority (hereafter the “Moving Defendants”) for an order pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim for not pleading a reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act, and also lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; AND UPON considering all of the Defendants’ and the Plaintiff’s consent to the terms of this Order; THIS COURT ORDERS that: The Statement of Claim is hereby amended in the form attached as Schedule “A” to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated August 5, 2020 (the “Amended Statement of Claim”); The Moving Defendants’ motion is granted; The Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim is struck against all Defendants pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) as presently disclosing no reasonable cause of action under the Competition Act and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for the causes of action set out in the Amended Statement of Claim; For greater certainty, this Order: is not an adjudication on the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims; and is without prejudice to the Plaintiff or any putative class member from continuing, refiling, filing, and/or recommencing any of the claims in the Statement of Claim or Amended Statement of Claim before a provincial superior court. Pursuant to Rule 334.39, all parties to this action shall bear their own costs. “Glennys L. McVeigh” Judge

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Competition Act (RSC, 1985, c. C-34)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, Rule 221(1)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, Rule 334.39

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

This is the authority chain visible in the available record, not a subsequent-treatment report. Confirm later citations before relying on the case as current authority.

Check official judgment

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

Sign in to ask AIBrowse more case law

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.