Choyce v. Gaum
Certification was refused because the proposed class definition was merits‑based and not objectively ascertainable and the purported common issues (standard of care for specified BMTs, informed consent, damages range, and limitation exceptions) would each require individualized inquiries into the circumstances of each claimant across a multi‑decade practice, so a class proceeding is not the preferable, fair or manageable procedure under s.7; only s.7(1)(a) was satisfied.
Source excerpt
- Class certification
- Standard of care
- Informed consent
- Behaviour management techniques
- Limitation periods
- Damages