Joel P. Rochon

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class action against Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent's cigarettes were defectively designed because they posed an unreasonable risk of igniting residential fires.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's findings that the proposed class definitions were unacceptably merits-based, that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to overwhelming individual causation issues, and that the proposed litigation plan was unworkable.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order granting a request for international judicial assistance (letters rogatory) from a United States District Court.

The respondents sought to examine the appellant, a former manager of a Canadian oil company's subsidiary, regarding the company's alleged complicity in human rights violations in Sudan.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the request did not violate Canadian public policy, it was framed in terms so broad and general that the record could not sustain a finding that the evidence sought was relevant, necessary, or not otherwise obtainable.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Prepulsid.

The respondents successfully moved to strike paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging fraudulent or negligent filings with Health Canada and claiming reimbursement of the purchase price.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the paragraphs regarding regulatory filings as they were sustainable under a negligence or negligent misstatement claim.

However, the court upheld the striking of the reimbursement claims, finding they could not be sustained under negligence, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment.

The defendants appealed an order consolidating two proposed class actions and substituting a new representative plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive rights between the parties.

As an interlocutory order, the appeal properly lies to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the same constitutional issue had already been decided in respect of a closely connected defendant in the same proceeding.

The court also noted that the trial was imminent, several plaintiffs were critically ill, and the defendants had engaged in a proliferation of proceedings resulting in unacceptable delay.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action on behalf of indirect purchasers (homeowners and end users) alleging that the defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy regarding iron oxide pigment used in construction materials.

The application judge certified the action.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court held that the plaintiffs faced insurmountable problems of proof regarding whether the alleged overcharge was passed on to them through the chain of distribution, making the action unmanageable and inappropriate for aggregate damages assessment.

The defendants brought a motion for a stay of the class action proceedings pending their appeal of the certification order.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious issue to be tried, the defendants would suffer irreparable harm from unrecoverable expenses and reputational damage, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The action was stayed pending the appeal to the Divisional Court.