Canada Case Law

Ramrup v. Rayner

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the chambers judge did not err in exercising his discretion to convert the action to a class proceeding or in granting leave to amend the NOCC; however it was premature and an error in principle to fix the commencement date for tolling under s.38.1 of the CPA at the conversion stage without a fuller record, so the order selecting October 3, 2022 was vacated and the respondent was granted leave to file a second further amended notice of civil claim.

Source excerpt

• Conversion to class proceeding
• Certification
• Limitation period tolling
• Amendment of pleadings
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis

Head v. 859530 Ontario Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal upheld certification of causation and punitive damages in a COVID-19 class action against a long-term care home and denied leave on costs.

• Certification
• Causation
• Punitive damages
• Costs
• Infection prevention and control
• Covid-19 outbreaks

Read case analysis

Wesley v. British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court certified the action as a class proceeding because the pleadings, read generously and assuming pleaded facts true, disclose viable causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office against Canada and the Province in respect of post-immunity periods and as to the Indigenous Subclass, battery/medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Dr. MacKenzie as properly pleaded, there is some evidence of an identifiable class and Indigenous subclass of two or more, and the claims raise common issues the determination of which will materially ad…

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Negligence
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Misfeasance in public office
• Unjust enrichment
• Vicarious liability

Read case analysis

Jiang v. Peoples Trust Company

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Rule 7-7 governs notices to admit in class proceedings; a bare denial satisfies Rule 7-7(2)(a) and is not subject to interlocutory scrutiny absent clear non-compliance; s.12 of the CPA does not authorize the court to deem denials admitted or decide disputed facts on this interlocutory application; refusals or statements of inability under Rule 7-7(2)(b)-(c) require reasons but, given volume and complexity, propriety of those reasons is more appropriately addressed at trial or via costs under Rule 7-7(4).

Source excerpt

• Notice to admit
• Admissions
• Rule 7-7
• Case management
• Costs
• Certification

Read case analysis

Canadian Hockey League v. McEwan

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the case management judge did not err in exercising her discretion: the proposed cross‑examinations would chiefly affect credibility and weight reserved for trial, would not materially assist determination of certification requirements including commonality and "some basis in fact," and concerns about delay were legitimate given the litigation history; her refusal is entitled to deference and is affirmed.

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Cross-examination of affidavits
• Common issues
• Preferable procedure
• Expert evidence
• Gatekeeping

Read case analysis

Crawford v. FCA Canada Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application dismissed because defendants failed to show the proposed cross-examination would likely yield relevant information beyond what is apparent on the face of the affidavits, and the marginal utility did not outweigh the risk of delay and added cost; timing alone did not preclude consideration but did not justify leave.

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Commonality
• Admissibility of expert evidence
• Leave to cross-examine affidavits
• Preferable procedure
• Timeliness and costs

Read case analysis

Martell v Nova Scotia (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Court approved the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the Class; interpreted "collected compensation" in the CFA as relating to amounts actually recovered and not limiting the fee here; and, applying statutory factors and accepted jurisprudential benchmarks, approved the Class Counsel Fee at 30% (maximum $12,529,710.10) and Disbursements of $100,161.40, directed payment in two instalments with a 20% holdback for potentially reverting funds, and approved $15,000 honoraria to each Representative Plaintiff.

Source excerpt

• Settlement approval
• Class counsel fees
• Contingency fee agreements
• Representative plaintiff honoraria
• Certification
• Independent assessment process

Read case analysis

Merchant Law Group LLP v. Mayer

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant identified no reviewable error in the certification judge's decision; the certification order is upheld.

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Standard of review
• Appeal disposition

Read case analysis

Reichert v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal from refusal to certify a proposed class action dismissed. The Court held the chambers judge reasonably found a pension scheme and individual issues made a class proceeding not preferable.

• Preferable procedure
• Certification
• Limitation period
• Crown liability and proceedings act s.9
• Pension act s.111
• Access to justice

Read case analysis

Paladin Security Group Limited v. The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 5479

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The application for judicial review is dismissed because the Nova Scotia Labour Board’s Decision to refuse reconsideration was reasonable and procedurally fair: the Board properly exercised its discretionary power under s.19(1) TUA, correctly found that the proposed evidence (vote count and post‑certification bargaining history) was not materially new or appropriately probative of pre‑vote misconduct, and gave adequate reasons showing the decision was justified in context; costs awarded to CUPE.

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Reconsideration
• Procedural fairness
• Trade union act s.19(1)
• S.25(10)
• S.58(1)

Read case analysis