Sean Campbell

The appellants, FedEx, appealed an order certifying a class proceeding brought by the respondent, who alleged FedEx charged undisclosed and unsolicited customs brokerage fees in breach of the Consumer Protection Act.

FedEx argued the claim disclosed no cause of action, lacked common issues, and had an overly broad class definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the systemic nature of the billing practices raised common issues, and the class definition appropriately included claims that might face limitation or jurisdictional defences, which are better addressed at trial.

A carriage motion was brought to determine which of two competing proposed class actions regarding allegedly misleading 'recyclable' claims on Keurig coffee pods should proceed in Ontario.

The court evaluated the competing proposals under section 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, focusing on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court awarded carriage to the Buis action, finding its narrower class definition and reliance on a damages model already utilized in a U.S. settlement offered a more efficient path to resolution.

The competing Gordon action was stayed.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action alleging wrongful collection of personal information through the Tim Hortons and Burger King mobile applications.

Following a national settlement agreement approved by the Superior Court of Quebec, the parties consented to the dismissal of this Ontario action.

The court dismissed the proposed class action without costs.

The parties in a proposed class action reached a consortium agreement to seek certification of a national class in British Columbia.

A dispute arose over whether the Ontario action should be stayed permanently or conditionally.

The parties ultimately agreed to a consent order staying the action subject to further order of the court, but could not agree on costs.

The court found that both parties had credible arguments for being the successful party, as their positions were almost identical, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant, a secured creditor, applied to adjudge the respondent bankrupt and sought a declaration that its perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act took priority over class counsel's first charge under the Class Proceedings Act regarding a $3 million costs award.

The court adjudged the respondent bankrupt and found the costs award was the respondent's property.

However, the court held that the first charge under the Class Proceedings Act is essentially a solicitor's lien, which is exempt from the Personal Property Security Act.

Therefore, class counsel's charge takes priority over the applicant's secured claim.

A class action brought by automobile dealers challenged a manufacturer’s 2009 wind‑down agreements issued during the global financial crisis, alleging breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing, disclosure obligations, and the right of association under franchise legislation.

The court held the manufacturer did not breach its contractual or statutory obligations in implementing the dealer reduction plan or issuing the agreements under urgent restructuring circumstances.

However, the law firm advising the dealer group was found to have breached fiduciary duties, contractual duties, and the standard of care by acting despite conflicts of interest and failing to properly advise the dealers during the restructuring process.

The court concluded that the lawyers’ misconduct deprived the dealers of a real opportunity to negotiate improved termination compensation.

Aggregate damages were therefore awarded for loss of that negotiation opportunity.

The applicant sought remedies under Part VII.1 of the Competition Act after the respondents advertised that their wireless service had fewer dropped calls than competitors without conducting adequate and proper testing beforehand.

The court previously found the respondents engaged in reviewable conduct under s. 74.01(1)(b) for making an untested performance claim, although the applicant failed to prove the claim was false or misleading under s. 74.01(1)(a).

In determining remedies, the court assessed proportionality and the factors in s. 74.1(5), including market reach, financial position, and the fact that later testing substantiated the claim.

The court held that post-claim substantiation does not excuse the statutory requirement for prior testing but is relevant to penalty quantum.

An administrative monetary penalty of $500,000 was imposed, while the request for a 10‑year prohibition order was denied.