The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion for certification of a class proceeding against the respondents for alleged systemic negligence in connection with overcharging for electricity supply caused by a new billing system.
The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no common harm to the class, as the alleged systemic negligence produced a multiplicity of errors that were harmful, neutral, or beneficial to different class members.
The court concluded that the proposed common issues were not substantial ingredients of each class member's claim and that a class action was not the preferable procedure.
The appeal was dismissed.
