Jill Mettie Lawrie

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent bank.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent received interest on cash advances at a criminal rate, in violation of s. 347(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and sought restitutionary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the restitutionary claims did not raise common issues and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs award of approximately $600,000 granted to the plaintiffs following a successful class action certification motion.

The motion judge's award was significantly higher than any previously awarded for a certification motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the correctness of the order was open to serious debate because the motion judge did not appear to consider the overall reasonableness of the award or the reasonable expectations of the paying party.

The court also found the issue to be of sufficient public importance, as such a high costs award could impact the development of class action law and raise access to justice concerns.

The respondents, having been largely successful on the main appeals concerning the interpretation of seizure and detention remedies under the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, sought costs totaling over $631,000.

The court declined to award costs to any party.

The court reasoned that the proceedings raised novel issues of statutory interpretation that engaged the public interest, the respondents were not completely successful as their cross-appeals were dismissed, and the appellant airport authorities acted reasonably in bringing the appeals given the lack of established jurisprudential authority.

The plaintiffs contracted HIV from blood and blood products supplied by the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) between 1983 and 1985.

They alleged the CRCS was negligent in its blood donor screening procedures.

The trial judge found the CRCS breached its standard of care by using a 'good health' questionnaire rather than symptom-specific questions, but dismissed one plaintiff's action for failing to prove causation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the negligence findings and reversed the causation dismissal by applying a presumptive causal link.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CRCS's appeals, holding that while the Court of Appeal erred in applying a presumptive causal link, causation was established under the material contribution test because the CRCS's failure to implement adequate screening measures materially contributed to the plaintiffs contracting HIV.