The plaintiff sought leave of the court to bring its motion for certification of a class proceeding and for its appointment as representative plaintiff, pursuant to s. 2(3)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, after the statutory 90-day period had expired.
The defendants opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the delay.
The court granted leave, finding that the 90-day rule is frequently not strictly observed, there was no evidence of actual prejudice to the defendants (who had preserved documents and were subject to prior investigations), and the court's consent to a timetable for the certification motion implied leave.
The court emphasized that denying leave would be unjust given the circumstances and the defendants' late challenge to the plaintiff's right to bring the motion.
