Tiller v. Canada
- Citation
- 2020 FC 845
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 5 August 2020
- Posture
- Class Proceeding / Implementation of Settlement (clarification Motion)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 5 August 2020
- Posture
- Class Proceeding / Implementation of Settlement (clarification Motion)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that because implementation of the Settlement had commenced before the commencement of the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), and there were no appeals or likely appeals, the Implementation Date remains July 16, 2020; the clarification was within the Court's discretion and in the best interests of the class.
Court disposition
Motion granted on consent; Implementation Date of the Settlement remains July 16, 2020 and is not impacted by the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19).
Orders
- The Implementation Date of the Settlement of this class action remains July 16, 2020 and has not been impacted by the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), SC 2020, c 11.
02
Material facts
Parties
Cheryl Tiller
PlaintiffMary-Ellen Copland
PlaintiffDayna Roach
PlaintiffHer Majesty the Queen
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Class Proceeding / Implementation of Settlement (clarification Motion)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) affects the Implementation Date of the settlement
- 02
Whether the Court should clarify and confirm the Implementation Date under the approved Settlement Agreement
- 03
Whether implementation which commenced before the Covid Act excludes the settlement from the Act's suspension provisions
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Representative Plaintiffs sought a written, on-consent clarification that the Implementation Date is July 16, 2020 and that it was not affected by the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) because implementation had commenced prior to the Act and delays had already been addressed by extensions.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not oppose the motion; the Court noted there were no appeals or likely appeals and the motion was brought on consent and in the best interests of the class.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 369, Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106
Court may grant clarifying orders on consent under the Federal Courts Rules
- 02
Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), SC 2020, c. 11
Statutory suspension of time periods under the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) does not alter acts already commenced
- 03
Class proceedings doctrine / court discretion
Court must act in the best interests of the class when supervising class proceedings and implementation of settlements
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that because implementation of the Settlement had commenced before the commencement of the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), and there were no appeals or likely appeals, the Implementation Date remains July 16, 2020; the clarification was within the Court's discretion and in the best interests of the class.
Obiter and limits
- Motion brought on consent and in writing under Rule 369 is an appropriate mechanism for clarifying settlement implementation dates
- Extensions due to pandemic-related court operations do not, by themselves, alter an agreed Implementation Date when implementation commenced prior to statutory suspension
Court disposition
Motion granted on consent; Implementation Date of the Settlement remains July 16, 2020 and is not impacted by the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19).
- The Implementation Date of the Settlement of this class action remains July 16, 2020 and has not been impacted by the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), SC 2020, c 11.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 5 August 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 5 August 2020
Tiller v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-08-05 Neutral citation 2020 FC 845 File numbers T-1673-17 Decision Content Date: 20200805 Docket: T-1673-17 Citation: 2020 FC 845 Ottawa, Ontario, August 5, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
CLASS PROCEEDING BETWEEN: CHERYL TILLER, MARY-ELLEN COPLAND
AND DAYNA ROACH Plaintiffs and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant
ORDER WHEREAS this motion was made by the Representative Plaintiffs, on consent and in writing, pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, for clarification of the “Implementation Date” under the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court; AND UPON READING the motion record of the Representative Plaintiffs; AND UPON the Implementation Date having been set, after extensions due to pandemic circumstances affecting Court operations, as July 16, 2020; AND UPON the implementation of the Settlement having been commenced before the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), SC 2020, c. 11 [Covid Act]; AND HAVING CONSIDERED that no appeals or leaves to appeal have been filed or are likely to be filed; AND HAVING CONSIDERED that the motion is in the best interests of the Class and is within the Court’s discretion to grant; THIS COURT ORDERS that the Implementation Date of the Settlement of this class action remains July 16, 2020, and has not been impacted by the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19), SC 2020, c 11. blank “Michael L. Phelan” blank Judge
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.