Anna White

The appellants, FedEx, appealed an order certifying a class proceeding brought by the respondent, who alleged FedEx charged undisclosed and unsolicited customs brokerage fees in breach of the Consumer Protection Act.

FedEx argued the claim disclosed no cause of action, lacked common issues, and had an overly broad class definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the systemic nature of the billing practices raised common issues, and the class definition appropriately included claims that might face limitation or jurisdictional defences, which are better addressed at trial.

In a landmark CCAA proceeding involving Hudson's Bay Company, the court declined to approve the assignment of 25 major retail department store leases across Canada to a new tenant, Ruby Liu Commercial Investment Corp., despite the transaction representing the highest bid and generating approximately $50 million in net proceeds for creditors.

The court found that the proposed assignee failed to meet the reasonableness standard under section 11.3(3) of the CCAA, particularly regarding its ability to perform the substantial and ongoing obligations under the leases.

The decision emphasizes that section 11.3 is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly, and that the court must balance the interests of all stakeholders, including the contractual counterparties (landlords) who would be compelled into a long-term relationship with an untested and undercapitalized purchaser.

The court also rejected the applicants' arguments that certain lease provisions constituted ipso facto clauses violating the anti-deprivation rule and section 34 of the CCAA.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action against FedEx, alleging undisclosed and unsolicited fees for customs clearance services (Advancement Fee and Clearance Entry Fee) in violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, a non-commercial purchaser, received an invoice for these fees after being promised "free shipping," believing them to be government levies.

The court found that the claim disclosed viable causes of action under the CPA, including unsolicited services and unfair practices, and unjust enrichment.

It rejected FedEx's arguments regarding agency, territorial reach of the CPA, and the sufficiency of website disclosures.

The court also found the proposed class identifiable, common issues present, and a class action to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the goals of judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The action was certified.

The appellant landlord sought to expand a shopping centre to accommodate a new LCBO store, which required reconfiguring 36 parking spaces.

The respondent grocery store tenant successfully applied for a permanent injunction, with the application judge finding the tenant had a leasehold proprietary interest in the common parking area.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in law, as the tenant lacked exclusive possession of the parking area.

Assuming the tenant held an easement, the Court found no substantial interference with the tenant's rights, as the reconfiguration did not significantly reduce available spaces and the tenant had no contractual right to specific spots.

The appeal was allowed and the injunction set aside.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff sued the defendant over several videos posted online that allegedly implicated the plaintiff in a conspiracy to assassinate the spiritual leader of the Gonabadi Sufis in Iran.

The court found that while the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendant's defences of justification and qualified privilege lacked a real prospect of success.

The court concluded that the public interest in permitting the action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, as truth and justice favoured a trial on the merits.

The motion was dismissed.