Careen Hannouche

The appellant, TELUS Communications Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision regarding the constitutional validity of the Wireless Services Agreement Act 2013 (WSAA) and a class action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the WSAA was within provincial legislative jurisdiction and was not rendered inoperative by paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's request to stay the class action for CRTC determination, confirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a $1 million settlement in a privacy class action against a technology company regarding the collection of cell phone data.

Because individual class members could not be identified, the settlement provided no direct compensation to the class, instead directing funds to a cy-près recipient (the Law Foundation) after payment of class counsel fees.

The court approved the settlement as the best possible outcome given the unmanageability of the class, but reduced class counsel's requested fees from $333,333 to $300,000 to reflect the lack of direct recovery for class members.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a wireless service provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds upon cancellation of services, relying on the provincial Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013.

The defendant brought a cross-motion arguing the provincial Act was ultra vires or inoperative due to federal jurisdiction over telecommunications.

The court held that the provincial Act was valid consumer protection legislation, and was not rendered inoperative by the doctrines of federal paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against a telecommunications provider seeking pro-rated refunds for prepaid wireless services after cancelling her contract.

The plaintiff relied on a statutory cause of action under the Telecommunications Act, alleging the provider breached the CRTC's Wireless Code.

The provider brought a cross-motion to strike the claim.

The Superior Court granted the cross-motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was essentially for breach of contract, which is expressly excluded from the statutory cause of action by s. 72(3) of the Act.

Alternatively, the court held it would decline to exercise jurisdiction and defer to the CRTC, which has exclusive regulatory authority over the Wireless Code.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class action against a telecommunications provider for failing to provide pro-rated refunds to customers who cancelled their wireless service agreements.

The court denied certification for the national class claim under the Telecommunications Act, finding no viable cause of action.

However, the court granted certification for an Ontario subclass advancing claims under the Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013, finding that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and the common issues, including aggregate and punitive damages, were suitable for a class proceeding.

The appellant, Dell, sold computers online and mistakenly posted incorrect low prices.

The respondent consumer ordered a computer at the incorrect price using a deep link.

When Dell refused to honour the order, the consumer sought to institute a class action.

Dell applied to refer the claim to arbitration based on a clause in its terms and conditions.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitration clause was valid and not an external clause, as it was reasonably accessible via hyperlink.

The Court also held that under the competence-competence principle, the arbitrator should rule first on their own jurisdiction, and that the arbitration clause did not contain a foreign element that would trigger the application of the rules on the international jurisdiction of Quebec authorities.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred to arbitration.