M. Kremer

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class proceeding against a bank and a former employee who improperly accessed customers’ confidential financial information and disclosed it to third parties, leading to identity theft and fraud affecting numerous customers.

The court considered the requirements for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including whether the pleadings disclosed causes of action such as negligence, breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, vicarious liability, and waiver of tort.

The court held that several pleaded claims disclosed viable causes of action and that the proposed class of 643 customers whose information had been accessed constituted an identifiable class.

The court further found that the issues of negligence, breach of contract, vicarious liability for intrusion upon seclusion, and waiver of tort raised common issues and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving them.

The proposed representative plaintiffs were found to be suitable and capable of advancing the litigation.

Following an earlier refusal to schedule the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the court directed the parties to develop a trial preparation plan.

The parties submitted a proposed plan addressing production, examinations for discovery, undertakings, interlocutory motions, witness evidence, mediation, and trial management.

The court issued detailed case management directions establishing timelines for documentary production, discoveries, undertakings, and mediation, and provided guidance on the conduct of witness evidence and trial scheduling.

The decision also required the parties to schedule discovery-related motions and a further case conference to determine time limits for the anticipated two-week trial.

The court heard two separate motions to strike or stay pending summary judgment motions on the Commercial List.

Applying the principles from Combined Air and the proportionality requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that concerns about the appropriateness of summary judgment motions should be addressed through case management rather than formal motions to strike.

The court reviewed the proposed summary judgment motions in both actions and concluded that neither was an appropriate candidate for summary judgment due to the complexity of the issues, the voluminous records, and the need for a full trial to appreciate the evidence.

Both summary judgment motions were directed not to proceed, and the parties were ordered to prepare for trial.