Introduction. A Brief Primer

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Introduction. A Brief Primer"

Transcription

1 Recent Developments in Canadian Class Actions Brad W. Dixon Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Burrard Street Vancouver, British Columbia V7X 1T Brad Dixon is a partner with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, one of Canada s largest national law firms, with offices across the country. Brad is located in the firm s Vancouver office. He has defended class actions in Canada against a number of automotive manufacturers, distributors and dealers in cases alleging negligent design, breach of warranty or breach of consumer protection legislation. Introduction Modern class action legislation in the common law provinces of Canada (excluding Quebec, a civil code jurisdiction) is of comparatively recent vintage. Ontario led the way in 1992, British Columbia followed in 1995 and since that time all but one of Canada s ten provinces have enacted class action legislation. In the nature of class actions, the principal battleground has been the certification application, with cases that are certified often leading to settlements. Few cases have proceeded to common issues trials. In the result, while it may not be possible to say that Canadian class action jurisprudence is still in its infancy, it is certainly enjoying a prolonged adolescence. The last eighteen months have seen some decisions rendered on issues that will be of note to those in the automotive industry or defence bar who, by necessity or interest, follow class action developments north of the border. Defence counsel in Canada have taken heart from restrictions placed on restitution claims, brought by non-injured claimants, where vehicles were alleged to be defective. In another case, developments in the law of Ontario, Canada s most populous province, restrict purchasers of defective, but non-dangerous, products to relief under applicable warranties, if any, denying claims for damages for negligence. Further developments are expected when the Supreme Court of Canada renders judgment in appeals argued in October 2012 that may affect the evidentiary burden faced by plaintiffs on a certification application. A Brief Primer A brief description of the legal landscape in Canada will set the scene for discussion of recent developments. The impetus in Canada for modern class action legislation arose out of recognition that the previous rules of court for representative proceedings were inadequate. Those rules date back to the English Judicature Act, For present purposes, it is interesting to note that this inadequacy was demonstrated most clearly by a decision in an automotive case. In 1983, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a claim brought on behalf of all the owners of Firenza

2 vehicles purchased in Ontario in 1971 and 1972: Naken v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 72. Those vehicles were alleged not to answer to implied warranties of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality and express, collateral warranties, allegedly made by way of advertising, that the vehicles were, durable, tough, and reliable. The pleadings alleged defects in various components (steering mechanism, braking, fuel line leakage, transmission breakdown, etc.) and sought $1,000 for each owner for damages for loss of re-sale value. The suit was allowed to proceed at first instance in a decision touted in the press at the time as allowing U.S. Ralph Nader-type lawsuits in Canada to empower consumers (Ottawa Citizen, December 8, 1975). Wending its way, some eight years later to the Supreme Court of Canada, this initial optimism was squelched when our top court held that the representative proceeding rules of the day were totally inadequate for employment as the base from which to launch an action of the complexity and uncertainty of this one. The court urged the introduction of a comprehensive legislative scheme for the institution and conduct of class actions. The legislative schemes adopted across Canada in the wake of that call for reform drew on U.S. rules and class action experience, but were intended to adopt a more liberal approach to certification. The British Columbia Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, is typical in most respects. No requirement for numerosity was included in the test for certification. Instead, certification may be sought for any identifiable class of two or more persons. There are no typicality or predominance requirements. The pleadings must disclose a cause of action and the claims of class members must raise common (but not necessarily identical) issues of fact or law, whether or not those common issues predominate over issues affecting only individual members. There is a version of a superiority test as the court must find a class action would be the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues, which requires a balancing exercise considering alternatives. There is no requirement that common issues be determinative of liability; they need only be a substantial ingredient of the claim: Hollick v. Toronto (City), [2001] 3 S.C.R That damages may require individual assessment is a factor for consideration, but is no bar to certification (there are provisions for aggregate damages if these can be determined for the class, but otherwise there are procedures set out for simplifying individual assessment). There must be a representative plaintiff who would fairly and adequately represent the class, has produced a plan for the proceeding and for notifying the class and has no conflict with other class members on the common issues. The policy choices made in the crafting of our legislation in Canada have, in the view of many in the defence bar, set a somewhat tilted playing field. The test for disclosure of a cause of action on the pleadings, for instance, is not an onerous one for plaintiffs. On the assumption that the material facts pleaded are true, the claim will only be dismissed if it is plain and obvious that, as a matter of law, it cannot succeed. Our courts have often been unwilling to dismiss novel claims on this basis. Where a claim is novel, there is a judicial tendency to prefer the basis of a full trial record before making decisions on the extent to which the law will recognize such a claim. This has the obvious disadvantage for defendants that novel claims, which may in fact have very limited prospects of success, often make it through certification. A further example is the very limited evidentiary burden faced by plaintiffs on the other elements of the certification test. The certification application must be based on evidence that meets the usual criteria for admissibility: Ernewein v. General Motors of Canada Limited (2005), 46 B.C.L.R. (4 th ) 234

3 (C.A.) leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2005] S.C.C.A. No However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held in Hollick v. Toronto (City), supra, that plaintiffs are only required to adduce evidence that shows some basis in fact for the conclusion by the court that there is an adequate representative of an identifiable class, with common issues for which a class action is preferable. On the basis of this articulation of the burden, lower courts have concluded that they are not to engage in weighing the evidence, if the defendants adduce evidence to the contrary. The courts have been unwilling to engage in any contest of expert evidence, unless it is clear that plaintiffs have adduced evidence from a witness entirely unqualified to opine on the matter. There is, in this, a very constrained role for the court as gatekeeper; this is not a rigorous analysis by any means. Contending with Non-Injured Claimants The plaintiffs class action bar in Canada has shown considerable creativity in exploiting the procedural tools provided by modern class action legislation and in exploiting the low thresholds established for certification (characteristics likely not unique to the Canadian situation). One example of this, vexing for defendants, has been the rebirth in Canada of the old common law doctrine of waiver of tort and its adoption and expansion in class actions. With roots in the common law dating back to the late 17 th century (for a thorough treatment see: Waiver of Tort, An Historical and Practical Survey, J.M. Martin, [2012] Can. Bus. L.J., Vol. 52, p. 473), the doctrine of waiver of tort was not unknown to Canadian law. It was, however, traditionally seen as allowing for an election of remedies, typically in cases involving tortious interference with property rights, to allow a claimant to elect to recover the wrongdoer s profit if that were a more favourable remedy than damages for loss sustained by the claimant. The doctrine had fallen into relative obscurity in Canada until the advent of modern class actions legislation. Waiver of tort burst back onto the Canada scene in 2004 in a claim in which certification of a class action was sought in respect of a defective medical device marketed for use in blood glucose testing: Serhan v. Johnson & Johnson (2004), 72 O.R. (3 rd ) 296. The product was admittedly defective and the defendant Lifescan, the manufacturer, had paid a large fine in the United States as a result of a plea agreement in which it admitted knowledge of the defect and the filing of false reports with regulators. However, there was no evidence of any putative class member in Canada suffering injury as a result of use of the device and no evidence that any of the putative class members had paid for the device or testing strips the cost having been covered by a provincial health benefit program. The court certified the claim on the basis that waiver of tort might apply to ground a restitutionary remedy for an accounting of profits. This decision identified, but did not resolve, certain controversial issues surrounding the doctrine of waiver of tort: Whether it is an independent cause of action (in which case proof of loss is not required) or merely an election of remedies (in which case proof of loss * The author was co-counsel for the defendants at the B.C. Court of Appeal and on the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

4 would be required as a prerequisite where an actionable wrong is not complete without loss)? What types of wrongful conduct may ground a claim in waiver of tort, some or all tortious wrongs or other legal wrongs as well, such as breach of contract or breach of statute? The certification judge in Serhan declined to decide these questions in advance of trial, and was sustained in that regard on appeal (including by refusal of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada): 2006, 85 O.R. (3 rd ) 665, 269 D.L.R. (4 th ) 279 (Div. Ct.); [2006] S.C.C.A. No Ultimately, this case led to no answers as the claims were settled before trial. In the wake of the Serhan case, numerous class actions have been certified in various Canadian jurisdictions on the basis of waiver of tort claims, product liability cases among them. The potential for relief measured by disgorgement of wrongful profits has obviated the burden on plaintiffs to show commonality as to causation of loss and assessment of damages elements that might otherwise require individual treatment and militate against certification. Results have varied somewhat by jurisdiction, but by and large waiver of tort has been a safe harbour for plaintiffs on the certification application. In a British Columbia automotive case, Reid v. Ford Motor Co., 2006 B.C.S.C. 712, the court declined to allow a waiver of tort claim to be added in an amendment to a certified claim for negligence and failure to warn (the alleged defect was in the ignition system a distributor-mounted thick film ignition module). The court reasoned that the alleged wrongs are anti-harm torts not anti-enrichment torts and waiver of tort was traditionally only available for the latter. However, this classification has not since consistently prevailed in British Columbia and in Ontario the courts would not adopt it at certification, leaving the question to be resolved at trial. Two recent and important developments may turn the tide. In Ontario, after a 138 day common issues trial in a products class action involving a medical device (Andersen v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2012 O.N.S.C. 3660), from which the defence bar hoped to receive some clarification of the law, the trial judge ultimately did not have to decide the nature or scope of the doctrine of waiver of tort (the case was dismissed on the basis there was no breach of the standard of care). The trial judge did, however, go to some pains to make clear that the extensive trial record had not advanced her consideration of the legal and policy issues relating to the doctrine of waiver of tort. This can be expected to encourage other courts to come to grips with the legal issues raised by waiver of tort at the certification stage, rather than leaving the matter for trial. In the British Columbia case Koubi v. Mazda Canada Inc. et al, 2012 B.C.C.A. 310, the Court of Appeal reversed certification and dismissed claims for disgorgement of profits brought against the Canadian distributor and its authorized dealers. The Supreme Court of Canada refused the plaintiff s application for leave to appeal on January 17, The author was counsel for the defendants.

5 In the Koubi case, the plaintiff alleged that the design of the door locking mechanism was defective. The allegation was that criminal entry could be obtained by banging on the driver-side door (hard enough or long enough) to displace the linkage rods and disengage the lock. The plaintiff had not suffered such a break-in or an attempted break-in. Indeed, the manufacturer had developed a lock reinforcement and this was offered by the Canadian distributor, at its cost, in a special service program commencing before any claim was filed (ultimately retro-fitting at least 84% of the subject vehicles). The plaintiff s vehicle had the reinforcement installed. Despite all of this, she brought action. The plaintiff disclaimed any intention of pursuing claims on behalf of the putative class for property damage or loss from theft. Similarly, she disclaimed any intention to seek damages for loss of resale value. These strategic decisions were the result of an earlier case: Benning v. Volkswagen Canada Inc., et al BCSC 1292 in which claims of negligent design in a locking system had not been certified due to the individuality of issues relating to causation and assessment of damages. The plaintiff in Koubi sought to avoid those pitfalls by seeking instead disgorgement of the distributor s profits and disgorgement of the profits of dealers on the sale of the subject vehicles. As against the distributor, the plaintiff pleaded that certain marketing representations were deceptive acts or practices under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2 and that breach of the statute entitled the plaintiff to resort to waiver of tort and claim disgorgement of profits. As against the dealers, the claim was based on the implied warranties of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality in the Sale of Goods Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c Again, for breach of the statutory warranties the plaintiff sought a disgorgement of profits based on waiver of tort. These claims were certified at first instance. On appeal, the Court of Appeal did not resolve the unsettled state of the law as to whether or not waiver of tort may be an independent cause of action. The Court of Appeal did address the question of whether the alleged statutory breaches could provide the wrongful conduct required to ground a claim for disgorgement of profits based on that doctrine. Here, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the critical question as to whether those statutory breaches entitled the plaintiff to a restitutionary remedy is answered by an examination of legislative intent. In particular, the Court of Appeal asked whether the legislative intent was to depart from the general rule that statutory rights are enforced by statutory remedies provided in the legislation. On examination of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, the Court of Appeal held that it was a comprehensive and exhaustive code, occupying the field of consumer rights and remedies arising from deceptive acts by suppliers, and leaving no room for claims for restitutionary relief based on the novel doctrine of waiver of tort. That claim was decertified and dismissed as disclosing no cause of action. With respect to the Sale of Goods Act, the Court of Appeal noted that the legislation does not purport to be a comprehensive code. The legislation preserves the applications of the rules of the common law, except in so far as they are inconsistent with the express provisions of the Act. The claims for restitutionary damages or disgorgement of profits and waiver of tort were held to be inconsistent with the remedy provided for breach of warranty, which is expressly stipulated in the Act to be damages for losses suffered. In the result, those claims as well were decertified and dismissed as disclosing no cause of action.

6 The immediate significance of the decision in Koubi is that it limits the prospects for certification or narrows the scope for certified common issues in any future claims that might be brought under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act or the Sale of Goods Act. In such claims, it will not be possible for plaintiffs to avoid the individuality of causation or damage assessment on certification applications. The British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act is similar in many respects to consumer protection legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions. The Sale of Goods Act in British Columbia is patterned on the English Sale of Goods Act, as is similar legislation in all other Canadian common law provinces. For these reasons, it is to be expected that the Koubi decision will have application in other jurisdictions. By extension, it is expected that the case may have application where other statutory causes of action are pleaded. In any case in which the statute relied upon is a comprehensive code, specifying its own remedies, or where it specifies remedies that are not consistent with waiver of tort and disgorgement remedies, there is a prospect that such claims will be dismissed as disclosing no cause of action. Limiting Claims for Pure Economic Loss Claims for recovery of pure economic loss (not consequential on injury to a plaintiff s own person or property) have not met in Canada with entirely uniform treatment. In Ontario, despite binding authority to the contrary, some lower courts had certified product liability claims in negligence for pure economic loss based on allegations of defective, but non-dangerous products: for example, Bondy v. Toshiba of Canada Ltd., [2007] O.J. No. 784 (S.C.J.) and Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc., [2009] O.J. No. 418 (S.C.J.). These decisions had interpreted higher authority as leaving the question of the scope of recoverable pure economic loss claims in negligence open, unsettled or developing, such that the issue should not be decided at the certification application on the pleadings only. In a recent products case in Ontario, involving front-loading washing machines, certification was denied on the basis that these earlier authorities are distinguishable or incorrect: Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, [2012] ONSC The Court held that it is plain and obvious that there is no product-liability negligence action for pure economic losses against a manufacturer for negligently designing a non-dangerous consumer product. This is a significant development of the law, with important practical consequences. This will assist manufacturers in resisting certification of product liability claims alleging non dangerous defects. Unless they can be framed as warranty claims, these actions will be subject to dismissal as not disclosing a cause of action at law. An appeal has been heard, but at the time of writing the appeal judgment is under reserve. If this result is sustained on appeal, the law of Ontario will be confirmed on a basis that brings it into line with other Canadian jurisdictions, including British Columbia: see for example M. Hasegawa & Company Co. v. Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) Co., [2002] B.C.J. No (C.A.), though there may be lingering uncertainty elsewhere such as in Nova Scotia: Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp., 2007 NSCA 70. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is co-counsel for the defendants.

7 Evidentiary Burden What the Future May Hold A trio of cases, two from British Columbia and one from Quebec, were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in October 2012 and judgment remains under reserve at the time of writing: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company and Option Consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies AG. The substantive issue of law to be addressed is whether or not Canada should adopt the United States Supreme Court s Illinois Brick doctrine and disallow any claims for damages for price fixing by indirect purchasers. As important as that decision will be to competition law class actions in Canada, the significance of these appeals may reach further yet. An issue on appeal is whether the Supreme Court of Canada should address its earlier articulation of the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs to show some basis in fact for the certification requirements (other than disclosure on the pleadings of a cause of action). Of course, the court may decline to alter the landscape, but there is some reason for optimism that we may see something more akin to a standard of rigorous analysis introduced in Canada. Without turning the certification application into a merits hearing, the evidentiary standard for satisfaction of the certification test could be clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada to require proof on the balance of probabilities. This is a possibility that will have obvious practical implications for companies faced with certification applications in Canada. It would introduce a more robust gatekeeper role for the courts than we have to this point enjoyed. Cross-border Evidence Gathering With significant operations on both sides of the border, automotive industry clients and counsel should be aware of the ability of plaintiffs in either jurisdiction to look across the border for evidence. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently dealt with a letter of request for deposition of the former chairman of a manufacturer sought by U.S. class action plaintiffs in an anti-trust matter: Treat America Ltd. v. Leonidas, 2012 ONCA 748. Stressing the importance of international comity, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the ability of U.S. class action plaintiffs to gather evidence from the Canadian resident, even though there would not have been similar discovery rights, before certification, had the action been commenced in Canada. It is also notable that Canadian class action plaintiffs seem, increasingly, to look to disclosure and depositions in parallel U.S. litigation as a source of information to assist their efforts north of the border. Protective orders should be drawn with this possibility in mind. Conclusion For those in the automotive industry who must assess risks that span the border and often contend with parallel claims, the past eighteen months have seen a little more certainty achieved and some traction gained in defence of product liability and consumer law claims. The litigation landscape in Canada seems to have shifted, to some extent, to a more level field for defendants. The possibility of yet further improvements is held out by pending appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada. We may be seeing Canadian class action jurisprudence coming of age. With maturity, defendants can hope for more balance than achieved during the exuberance of youth.

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND)

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) Brad W. Dixon BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Introduction British Columbia courts continue to grapple with efforts by plaintiffs

More information

CPI Antitrust Chronicle December 2013 (1)

CPI Antitrust Chronicle December 2013 (1) CPI Antitrust Chronicle December 2013 (1) Green Light For Indirect Purchaser Claims in Canada Mark Katz & Chantelle Spagnola Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP www.competitionpolicyinternational.com Competition

More information

Defending Cross-Border Class Actions. Chantelle Spagnola Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP

Defending Cross-Border Class Actions. Chantelle Spagnola Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP Defending Cross-Border Class Actions Chantelle Spagnola Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP February 19, 2015 Outline A. Introduction to Cross-Border Class Actions B. Differences in Approaches for Dealing

More information

Uniform Class Proceedings Act

Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding

More information

Competition Law Roundtable

Competition Law Roundtable Competition Law Roundtable ILFA E-IURE Minneapolis Convention May 27, 2011 Introduction Overview of the importance of private antitrust enforcement for international corporations Scope of discussion: cartelist

More information

AS THE PENDULUM SWINGS: MEDICAL PRODUCTS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION IN CANADA RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 1

AS THE PENDULUM SWINGS: MEDICAL PRODUCTS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION IN CANADA RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 1 Introduction AS THE PENDULUM SWINGS: MEDICAL PRODUCTS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION IN CANADA RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 1 By: Peter J. Pliszka & Sarah J. Armstrong Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 2 During the relatively

More information

Craig T. Lockwood, for the Defendants B.C. Ltd. o/a Canada Drives and o/a GDC Auto and Cody Green REASONS FOR DECISION

Craig T. Lockwood, for the Defendants B.C. Ltd. o/a Canada Drives and o/a GDC Auto and Cody Green REASONS FOR DECISION CITATION: Kings Auto Ltd. v. Torstar Corporation, 2018 ONSC 2451 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-551919CP DATE: 20180418 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: KINGS AUTO LTD. and SAPNA INC., Plaintiffs

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Burnell v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2014 BCSC 258 Barry Jim Burnell Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as Represented by the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Godfrey v. Sony Corporation, 2017 BCCA 302 Between: And Neil Godfrey Date: 20170818 Docket: CA43711 Respondent (Plaintiff) Sony Corporation, Sony Optiarc,

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Basyal v. Mac s Convenience Stores Inc., 2017 BCSC 1649 Date: 20170918 Docket: S1510284 Registry: Vancouver Prakash Basyal, Arthur Gortificaion

More information

COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN

COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58 DATE: 20131031 DOCKET: 34283 BETWEEN: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg Appellants/Respondents

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Finkel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, 2016 BCSC 561 Eric Finkel Coast Capital Savings Credit Union Date: 20160331 Docket: S136507

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,

More information

Supreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases

Supreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases Supreme Court reaffirms low threshold for jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement cases Ted Brook Litigation Conflict of Laws Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Enforcement and Recognition Service Ex Juris

More information

A DECADE OF COMPETITION LAW CLASS ACTIONS: FROM CHADHA TO THE NEW TRILOGY

A DECADE OF COMPETITION LAW CLASS ACTIONS: FROM CHADHA TO THE NEW TRILOGY A DECADE OF COMPETITION LAW CLASS ACTIONS: FROM CHADHA TO THE NEW TRILOGY Charles M Wright, Andrea DeKay, Linda Visser, and Kerry McGladdery Dent Abstract: The brief history of Canadian competition law

More information

2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720

2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario

More information

Involved with Consumer Products in Canada?

Involved with Consumer Products in Canada? Involved with Consumer Products in Canada? The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (the Act ) is still relatively new. It was proclaimed in force on June 20, 2011. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG) has been

More information

A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA

A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA By William E. McNally and Barbara E. Cotton 1 2 Interesting things have been happening in Alberta recently regarding class action proceedings. Alberta is handicapped

More information

Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)

Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58 DATE: 20131031 DOCKET: 34283 BETWEEN: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg Appellants/Respondents

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2017 BCSC 1487 Date: 20170823 Docket: L031300 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Kenneth Knight Imperial Tobacco

More information

Canada: Electronic Commerce Law Overview

Canada: Electronic Commerce Law Overview Canada: Electronic Commerce Law Overview Stikeman Elliott LLP Canada: Electronic Commerce Law Overview... 2 Jurisdiction... 2... 2 Dealing with the Uncertainty... 4 Electronic Commerce Legislation... 4...

More information

A summary of Injurious Affection

A summary of Injurious Affection A summary of Injurious Affection Where no land of the claimant is expropriated By Devesh Gupta 30 March 2011 For the Ontario Expropriation Association Introduction The Ontario Expropriations Act 1 ( OEA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Jer v. Samji, 2013 BCSC 1671 Date: 20130910 Docket: S121627 Registry: Vancouver Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 Between:

More information

A Summary of Canadian Class Action Procedure and Developments. Glenn M. Zakaib Jean Saint-Onge

A Summary of Canadian Class Action Procedure and Developments. Glenn M. Zakaib Jean Saint-Onge A Summary of Canadian Class Action Procedure and Developments Glenn M. Zakaib Jean Saint-Onge Table of Contents I. The Canadian Court System and Class Actions... 1 II. The Types of Cases Filed and Relief

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant. Minkler v. Apple Inc Doc. PAUL J. HALL (SBN 00) paul.hall@dlapiper.com ALEC CIERNY (SBN 0) alec.cierny@dlapiper.com Mission Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Tel: () -00 Fax: () -0 JOSEPH COLLINS (Admitted

More information

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have

More information

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molnar v. BMW Canada Inc., 2017 NSSM 24 REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molnar v. BMW Canada Inc., 2017 NSSM 24 REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER BETWEEN: Claim No: SCCH - 461264 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molnar v. BMW Canada Inc., 2017 NSSM 24 REBECCA MOLNAR - and - Claimant BMW CANADA INC. Defendant REASONS FOR DECISION

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) Defendant ) ) ) ) HEARD: September 24, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) Defendant ) ) ) ) HEARD: September 24, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-333934CP DATE: 20091016 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 405341 ONTARIO LIMITED Plaintiff - and - MIDAS CANADA INC. Defendant Allan Dick, David Sterns and Sam Hall

More information

Case Comment: Ontario Inc. et al v. Tutor Time Learning Centres, LLC, et al. [2006] O.J. No (S.C.J.), confirmed on appeal April 12, 2007

Case Comment: Ontario Inc. et al v. Tutor Time Learning Centres, LLC, et al. [2006] O.J. No (S.C.J.), confirmed on appeal April 12, 2007 Scotia Plaza 40 King St. West, Suite 5800 P.O. Box 1011 Toronto, ON Canada M5H 3S1 Tel. 416.595.8500 Fax.416.595.8695 www.millerthomson.com TORONTO VANCOUVER WHITEHORSE CALGARY EDMONTON LONDON KITCHENER-WATERLOO

More information

To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay

To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay Paul D. Guy and Scott McGrath; WeirFoulds LLP Is seeking a stay of foreign proceedings a prerequisite to obtaining an anti-suit injunction in Canada? An anti-suit injunction

More information

Indexed As: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al.

Indexed As: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg (appellants/respondents on cross-appeal) v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Before: Chalmers v. AMO Canada Company, 2010 BCCA 560 Trina Lorraine Chalmers, an infant, by her litigation guardian, Cherie Chalmers AMO Canada

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF

More information

Page: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu

Page: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs

More information

Case Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Case Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Page 1 Case Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Between Ralph Hunter, Plaintiff, and The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Bonnie Bishop,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: 20111230 Docket: CA039373 Meah Bartram, an Infant by her Mother and Litigation Guardian,

More information

Indexed As: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al.

Indexed As: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. and Neil Godfrey (appellants) v. Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Canada Co./Microsoft Canada CIE (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervener) (34282; 2013 SCC

More information

LIMITED WARRANTY. Models: CTK01, CTK02, CTK03, CTK04

LIMITED WARRANTY.   Models: CTK01, CTK02, CTK03, CTK04 LIMITED WARRANTY Who Is Providing The Warranty? This warranty is provided to you by Daikin Company, L.P. ( Daikin ), which warrants all parts of this thermostat ( control ), as described below. To What

More information

Attempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings

Attempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings Attempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings By Kevin L. Ross and Alysia M. Christiaen, Lerners LLP The

More information

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia ERIKOUN

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia ERIKOUN SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER REGISTRY MAR 2 7 2015 No. Vancouver Registry Between and In the Supreme Court of British Columbia ERIKOUN TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD., TOYODA GOSEI NORTH AMERICA

More information

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter 2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent

More information

Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada

Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada McCarthy Tétrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Toronto ON M5K 1E6 Canada Tel: 416-362-1812 Fax: 416-868-0673 Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada DAVID I. W.

More information

A Summary of Canadian Class Action Procedure and Developments

A Summary of Canadian Class Action Procedure and Developments A Summary of Canadian Class Action Procedure and Developments Glenn M. Zakaib Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP 2100-40 King Street W., Scotia Plaza Toronto ON M5H 3C2 Canada (416) 869-5711 Jean Saint-Onge

More information

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive

More information

Index. making the case for regulating professional standards of, 264

Index. making the case for regulating professional standards of, 264 ACCESS TO JUSTICE, 502 alternative dispute resolution, 506 definition of, 505 ADVOCACY civility in, 11 administration of justice, relationship to, 13 as officer of the court, 15 effective advocacy, role

More information

Good Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew

Good Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew Good Faith and Honesty: Bhasin v Hrynew June 9, 2015 Toronto, Ontario Marc Kestenberg, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Marlo Kravetsky, Senior Counsel, TD Bank Group Deborah Reine, Senior Counsel,

More information

Case 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 7:18-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARTIN ORBACH and PHILLIP SEGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

More information

[4] The defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario carrying on business as a theme water park in Limoges Ontario.

[4] The defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario carrying on business as a theme water park in Limoges Ontario. CITATION: CYR v. CALYPSO PARC INC. 2016 ONSC 2683 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54440 DATE: May 11, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: FRANCINE CYR Plaintiff AND: CALYPSO PARC INC. Defendant BEFORE: COUNSEL:

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Larc Developments Ltd. v. Levelton Engineering Ltd., 2010 BCCA 18 Commonwealth Insurance Company Larc Developments Ltd. and Rita A. Carle Date:

More information

Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Consolidated)

Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Consolidated) Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Consolidated) Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Definitions 2. The definitions in this section apply

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Geller v. Sable Resources Ltd., 2014 BCSC 171 Date: 20140203 Docket: S108380 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Jan Geller Sable Resources Ltd. Plaintiff

More information

.,;:(.~. * VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PHIL BEEDLE

.,;:(.~. * VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PHIL BEEDLE OF ~UPREME COURT VAN~ll~PRCROELUMB IA GIST RY S- 17 5315.::~,~ JUN 05 2017.. ::::~ :. No.. '.,;:(.~. * VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: PHIL BEEDLE PLAINTIFF AND: GENERAL

More information

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained

More information

Injurious Affection Claims where No Land is Taken after Antrim: Charting a New Course?

Injurious Affection Claims where No Land is Taken after Antrim: Charting a New Course? Injurious Affection Claims where No Land is Taken after Antrim: Charting a New Course? In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal s decision and restored

More information

2008 S.H. No. B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BARRETT THOMPSON - and - Plaintiff CADBURY ADAMS CANADA INC., MARS, INCORPORATED, MAR

2008 S.H. No. B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BARRETT THOMPSON - and - Plaintiff CADBURY ADAMS CANADA INC., MARS, INCORPORATED, MAR 2008 S.H. No. B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BARRETT THOMPSON - and - Plaintiff CADBURY ADAMS CANADA INC., MARS, INCORPORATED, MARS CANADA INC. formerly known as EFFEM INC., THE HERSHEY

More information

DISPUTE RESOLUTION & LITIGATION

DISPUTE RESOLUTION & LITIGATION W: DISPUTE RESOLUTION & LITIGATION LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT The Library of Parliament originated in the legislative libraries of Upper and Lower Canada, which were amalgamated in 1841. It is the main information

More information

Product Recalls: Crisis Management and Class Action Prevention

Product Recalls: Crisis Management and Class Action Prevention Product Recalls: Crisis Management and Class Action Prevention Gord McKee, Jill Lawrie, Nicole Henderson, Robin Linley & Marc-André Landry September 12, 2013 Recall Effectiveness An effective recall An

More information

Impact of Class Action Rules on Lawsuits by Aboriginal Nations in Federal Court

Impact of Class Action Rules on Lawsuits by Aboriginal Nations in Federal Court August 10, 2004 Ms. Éloïse Arbour Secretary to the Rules Committee Federal Court of Appeal Ottawa ON K1A 0H9 Dear Ms. Arbour: Re: Impact of Class Action Rules on Lawsuits by Aboriginal Nations in Federal

More information

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Jones v. Zimmer GMBH, 2016 BCSC 1847 Dennis Jones and Susan Wilkinson Date: 20161006 Docket: S095493 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Zimmer

More information

FACTUM OF THE APPELLANTS (MOVING PARTIES)

FACTUM OF THE APPELLANTS (MOVING PARTIES) COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Court of Appeal Court File No. M28645 BETWEEN: MARLENE C. CLOUD, GERALDINE ROBERTSON, RON DELEARY, LEO NICHOLAS, GORDON HOPKINS, WARRN DOXTATOR, ROBERTA HILL, J. FRANK HILL,

More information

THE GLOBALIZATION OF CLASS ACTIONS. Representation & Conflicts of Interests in Class Actions and Other Group Actions

THE GLOBALIZATION OF CLASS ACTIONS. Representation & Conflicts of Interests in Class Actions and Other Group Actions THE GLOBALIZATION OF CLASS ACTIONS An international conference co-sponsored by Stanford Law School and The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University Representation & Conflicts of Interests in Class

More information

British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law

British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications (Emeriti) 2004 British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law Robin Elliot Allard School of Law at the University

More information

Practical Approaches to Managing Class Proceedings in Canada: Prepared by: Glenn M. Zakaib and Jeremy Martin 1 Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

Practical Approaches to Managing Class Proceedings in Canada: Prepared by: Glenn M. Zakaib and Jeremy Martin 1 Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP How can a defendant to claims brought by multiple claimants manage those proceedings efficiently and effectively? Representative actions; class actions; agreements to be bound; test cases, consolidated

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2005 BCSC 172 Kenneth Knight Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited Date: 20050208 Docket: L031300

More information

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways

More information

Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW

Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property

More information

DRAFTING BETTER PLEADINGS

DRAFTING BETTER PLEADINGS DRAFTING BETTER PLEADINGS prepared by Teresa M. Tomchak ttomchak@farris.com INDEX A. INTRODUCTION...1 B. WHAT TO CONSIDER BEFORE YOU BEGIN DRAFTING...2 C. DRAFTING PLEADINGS...5 (1) Material Facts...5

More information

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN Martin C.Ward Introduction: The Crown could not be sued at common law. The Courts were creations of the Crown and as such it could not be compelled

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Oral Reasons for Judgment July 14, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Oral Reasons for Judgment July 14, 2005 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And ICBC v. Dragon Driving School et al, 2005 BCSC 1093 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Dragon Driving School Canada Ltd., Foon-Wai

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL

More information

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007 Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf

More information

Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL IDC Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 2 ( ) Product Liability

Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL IDC Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 2 ( ) Product Liability Product Liability By: James W. Ozog Wiedner & McAuliffe, Ltd. Chicago Product Liability and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act Pappas v. Pella Corporation, 844 N.E. 2d 995, 300 Ill. Dec. 552 (1st Dist. 2006)

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No. CV-12-444388 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: EPOCH S GARAGE LIMITED, COOK SCHOOL BUS LINES LIMITED, 678928 ONTARIO INC. and ROBERT DOUGLAS AKITT O/A DOUG AKITT BUS LINES - and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And A & G Investment Inc. v. 0915630 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1784 A & G Investment Inc. 0915630 B.C. Ltd. Date: 20130927 Docket: S132980 Registry:

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants

More information

Lohko for Android End User License Agreement

Lohko for Android End User License Agreement Lohko for Android End User License Agreement This End User License Agreement is an agreement between Disruptive Interactive Inc. ( Disruptive, we, or our ) and you. Please read the terms below carefully.

More information

Thomas Gorsky and C. Chan, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT

Thomas Gorsky and C. Chan, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: CHRISTMAS v. FORT McKAY, 2014 ONSC #373 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-461796 DATE: 20140128 RE: BERND CHRISTMAS, Plaintiff AND FORT McKAY FIRST NATION, Defendant BEFORE:

More information

Cross-Border Evidentiary Considerations When Confronting Loss or Destruction of Evidence in Canada

Cross-Border Evidentiary Considerations When Confronting Loss or Destruction of Evidence in Canada Disappearing Drills in the Dominion By Ryan P. Krushelnitzky and Sandra L. Corbett, QC American litigants faced with a product liability claim in Canada need to be aware of general principles that can

More information

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br... Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith

More information

Disposition before Trial

Disposition before Trial Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good

More information

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W

More information

Etherparty Terms of Use. Last Updated: April 2, 2018

Etherparty Terms of Use. Last Updated: April 2, 2018 Etherparty Terms of Use Last Updated: April 2, 2018 The following terms of use (the Terms of Use ) govern your access to and use of: our platform that is designed to assist with the creation, use and management

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor

More information

INSIGHT INFORMATION: LITIGATING CATASTROPHIC DISABILITY AND DAMAGES PROVING CAUSATION HOW TO CROSS THE RUBICON. William Westeringh,

INSIGHT INFORMATION: LITIGATING CATASTROPHIC DISABILITY AND DAMAGES PROVING CAUSATION HOW TO CROSS THE RUBICON. William Westeringh, INSIGHT INFORMATION: LITIGATING CATASTROPHIC DISABILITY AND DAMAGES PROVING CAUSATION HOW TO CROSS THE RUBICON William Westeringh, Managing Partner-Vancouver, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP and Karen Ameyaw,

More information

End User License Agreement

End User License Agreement Lohko ios End User License Agreement This End User License Agreement is an agreement between Disruptive Interactive Inc. ( Disruptive, we, or our ) and you. Please read the terms below carefully. They

More information

A: UPDATE ON ITEMS IN PREVIOUS ISSUES

A: UPDATE ON ITEMS IN PREVIOUS ISSUES #29: May 2011 Law Reform Notes Legislative Services Branch, Office of the Attorney General Room 416, Centennial Building P.O. Box 6000, Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5H1 Tel.: (506) 453-6542; Fax: (506)

More information

COMPETITION BUREAU CONSULTATION ON THE INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THE REGULATED CONDUCT DEFENCE

COMPETITION BUREAU CONSULTATION ON THE INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THE REGULATED CONDUCT DEFENCE COMPETITION BUREAU CONSULTATION ON THE INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THE REGULATED CONDUCT DEFENCE Submitted By the Canadian Federation of Agriculture 1101-75 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7 (613) 236-3633

More information

Government Introduces New Recruiting Requirements, Application Fee for LMOs

Government Introduces New Recruiting Requirements, Application Fee for LMOs Government Introduces New Recruiting Requirements, Application Fee for LMOs In conjunction with its Economic Action Plan 2013 and the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking, the Government of

More information

THE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer

THE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer TAB 1 THE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer The Latest on Damages for Continuing Nuisance Bryan Buttigieg, C.S. Miller Thomson LLP October 20, 2016 Six-Minute Environmental Lawyer 2016 The Law Society of

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION: CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.

More information

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION

More information

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Case comment on: Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22; and British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge 2007 SCC 23. Presented To:

More information