The applicant sought leave to appeal a carriage decision in competing securities class proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
A prior motion judge had granted carriage to one group of plaintiffs and stayed the applicant’s action after comparing factors such as causes of action, class definitions, representative plaintiffs, and litigation strategies.
The applicant argued the motion judge improperly conducted a substantive comparison of the competing theories and failed to give sufficient weight to factors such as conflicts of interest and retainer arrangements.
The court held that there was conflicting jurisprudence regarding the proper scope of analysis on carriage motions and that the issue warranted appellate clarification.
Leave to appeal was granted on the question of whether the motion judge erred in assessing the theories and attributes of the competing class actions and in determining carriage.
