Walters v. Canada
- Citation
- 2020 FC 1011
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 29 October 2020
- Posture
- Proposed Class Proceeding / Motion Under Rule 369
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 29 October 2020
- Posture
- Proposed Class Proceeding / Motion Under Rule 369
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion under Rule 369, appointing Murphy Battista LLP as counsel, prohibiting other class actions in Federal Court on the same pleaded facts without leave, and issuing the Order nunc pro tunc to the date the motion was filed, because the defendant took no position and the Court has authority under Rule 369 and its inherent jurisdiction to manage class proceedings and make retrospective procedural orders.
Court disposition
Motion granted
Orders
- Walters v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No. T-620-20) shall proceed with Murphy Battista LLP as counsel in the proposed class proceeding.
- No other class action be permitted in the Federal Court with respect of the facts pleaded in Walters v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No. T-620-20), without leave of this Court.
- This Order is issued nunc pro tunc to the date on which this motion was filed.
- This Order may be reviewed upon motion of either party, by a non-party with leave of the Court or upon the Court’s own motion.
02
Material facts
Parties
Cheyenne Walters
Plaintiff Counsel: Murphy Battista LLPLori-Lynn David
Plaintiff Counsel: Murphy Battista LLPHer Majesty the Queen
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Proposed Class Proceeding / Motion Under Rule 369
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Murphy Battista LLP should be appointed as counsel for the proposed class proceeding
- 02
Whether to prohibit other class actions in Federal Court concerning the same pleaded facts without leave of the Court
- 03
Whether the Order should be issued nunc pro tunc to the date the motion was filed
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiffs moved under Rule 369 that Walters v Her Majesty the Queen proceed with Murphy Battista LLP as counsel, that no other class action be permitted in Federal Court with respect to the pleaded facts without leave, and that the Order be issued nunc pro tunc to the filing date.
- Respondent
- The defendant took no position on the motion.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 369
Court may make orders under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules authorizing procedural steps in proposed class proceedings
- 02
Federal Court inherent jurisdiction / practice
Court may issue orders nunc pro tunc and control proceedings before it, including review of its orders on motion or on its own initiative
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion under Rule 369, appointing Murphy Battista LLP as counsel, prohibiting other class actions in Federal Court on the same pleaded facts without leave, and issuing the Order nunc pro tunc to the date the motion was filed, because the defendant took no position and the Court has authority under Rule 369 and its inherent jurisdiction to manage class proceedings and make retrospective procedural orders.
Court disposition
Motion granted
- Walters v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No. T-620-20) shall proceed with Murphy Battista LLP as counsel in the proposed class proceeding.
- No other class action be permitted in the Federal Court with respect of the facts pleaded in Walters v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No. T-620-20), without leave of this Court.
- This Order is issued nunc pro tunc to the date on which this motion was filed.
- This Order may be reviewed upon motion of either party, by a non-party with leave of the Court or upon the Court’s own motion.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 29 October 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· 29 October 2020
Walters v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-10-29 Neutral citation 2020 FC 1011 File numbers T-620-20 Decision Content Date: 20201029 Docket: T-620-20 Citation: 2020 FC 1011 Ottawa, Ontario, October 29, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
PROPOSED CLASS PROCEEDING BETWEEN: CHEYENNE WALTERS AND LORI-LYNN DAVID Plaintiffs and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant
ORDER UPON READING the motion brought by the Plaintiffs in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, and upon the Defendant taking no position on this motion; THIS COURT ORDERS that: Walters v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No. T-620-20) shall proceed with Murphy Battista LLP as counsel in the proposed class proceeding. No other class action be permitted in the Federal Court with respect of the facts pleaded in Walters v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No. T-620-20), without leave of this Court. This Order is issued nunc pro tunc to the date on which this motion was filed. This Order may be reviewed upon motion of either party, by a non-party with leave of the Court or upon the Court’s own motion. 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.