23 total
Motion to strike proposed class action claims regarding vehicle importation largely dismissed, with leave to amend.
The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' proposed class action claims relating to the importation of vehicles from the United States into Canada.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to force importers to pay for unnecessary modifications and certifications by manipulating Transport Canada's admissibility list.
The court dismissed the motion to strike the Competition Act, Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment claims.
The court struck the claim for unlawful purpose conspiracy without leave to amend, but allowed the unlawful conduct conspiracy claim to proceed.
The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their claim for intentional interference with economic interests.
Appeal dismissed; transmission inspection fee was for labour, not an illegal estimate fee.
The appellant brought a class action alleging that the respondent transmission repair franchisor breached consumer protection legislation by charging an 'Inspection Service' fee, which the appellant characterized as an illegal fee for an estimate when repairs are authorized and carried out.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding the fee was for the labour required to remove and reinstall the transmission, not for an estimate.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing with the motion judge's statutory interpretation and finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Summary judgment dismissing class action set aside after fresh evidence revealed franchisor failed to disclose training manual.
The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment dismissing a certified class action against a vehicle repair franchisor.
The class alleged the franchisor breached the Motor Vehicle Repair Act and Consumer Protection Act by charging estimate fees for an 'Inspection Service' when repairs were authorized.
On appeal, the plaintiff sought to admit fresh evidence of a training manual that contradicted the franchisor's evidence and had not been disclosed during cross-examination.
The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding the due diligence test less significant when the opposing party failed to disclose it.
The court set aside the summary judgment, concluding the motions judge lacked a full record and a genuine issue for trial existed regarding conspiracy.