Lisa Alleyne

The appellant appealed from an order refusing to reinstate an action that had been dismissed for delay.

The action was originally commenced in February 2011 against the respondent for $4,000,000 in damages.

The respondent failed to file a defence, but the registrar declined to sign default judgment.

The appellant failed to bring a motion for judgment, and the action was dismissed for delay in October 2011.

The appellant claimed she did not discover the dismissal until January 2018.

The motion judge found the delay inordinate, unsatisfactorily explained, and that reinstatement would undermine the finality principle.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued Bell Canada for breach of contract and misrepresentation after Bell disconnected his telephone services.

The plaintiff alleged that Bell failed to maintain a six-month seasonal suspension of his phone number.

Bell argued that the plaintiff's account was in arrears, justifying the termination.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his account was in good standing and that he had not paid the required fees.

The court also found that Bell's Terms of Service applied to the contract.

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Consumers brought proposed class proceedings against wireless service providers alleging that the companies billed cellular calls by rounding up partial minutes to the next full minute without adequate disclosure.

The plaintiffs advanced claims in breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and unjust enrichment, seeking certification of national and provincial classes.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action and that there was some basis in fact for common issues regarding the interpretation of standardized contracts, alleged misrepresentations about available minutes, and the uniform rounding‑up practice.

The court also held that class proceedings were the preferable procedure given the large class size and relatively small individual claims.

The actions were certified as class proceedings with defined classes and common issues.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision arising from a dispute with a telecommunications provider over billing following the cancellation of bundled services.

The deputy judge had found the provider’s billing communications confusing and its collection letters aggressive, but concluded the plaintiff failed to prove financial loss caused by the billing practices.

Nominal damages of $200 were awarded for mailing costs and the time spent addressing the collection efforts, together with modest costs.

On appeal, the court confirmed that jurisdiction existed because the amount claimed in the action exceeded the statutory threshold under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found no reversible error in the deputy judge’s findings or the costs disposition and dismissed both the appeal and the cross‑appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action for delay after the plaintiff failed to set the matter down for trial within the deadline established by a status hearing order.

The court reviewed the governing principles for setting aside registrar dismissals, including the Reid factors: explanation for litigation delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and absence of prejudice to the defendant.

Although the plaintiff failed to adequately explain a significant period of delay, the court found the missed deadline resulted from inadvertence and that the motion was brought promptly once the dismissal came to the plaintiff’s attention.

The plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of the limitation period.

Applying a contextual analysis and emphasizing the importance of prejudice, the court concluded it was in the interests of justice to set aside the dismissal and allow the action to proceed.