The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act.
It argued that the certification judge erred in finding the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and in determining that common issues existed, particularly regarding an alleged duty of a custodial trustee to warn investors about an investment scheme.
The court held that the certification judge properly applied the test under the Class Proceedings Act and that it was not plain and obvious the claim had no chance of success.
The alleged “super-added duty” was properly characterized as part of the broader tort duty of care that could arise depending on factual findings at trial.
The court also rejected arguments that the certification process or authorities relied upon created conflicting jurisprudence warranting appellate review.
