Sean Griffin

Two enterprises in airport and marine transportation security, and an employee, challenged provincial offence proceedings under Quebec’s Private Security Act on interjurisdictional immunity grounds.

The Court held that aspects of the provincial licensing scheme gave a provincial administrative body final control over how security activities at the core of exclusive federal aeronautics and navigation and shipping powers were conducted.

It found impairment of the federal core powers and concluded the impairing provisions were unseverable from the legislative scheme.

The statute was therefore declared constitutionally inapplicable to the appellants, and both appeals were allowed with costs.

Four British Columbia residents alleged to have participated in a transnational pump-and-dump securities manipulation scheme with links to Quebec challenged the adjudicative jurisdiction of Quebec's Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (FMAT) over out-of-province defendants.

The majority held that while the Civil Code of Québec's private international law rules did not independently ground jurisdiction, the Quebec securities scheme — comprising the Securities Act and the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers — properly interpreted in light of the Unifund sufficient connection test, conferred jurisdiction on the FMAT over appellants who had a real and substantial connection to Quebec.

The majority dismissed the appeals, finding that using Quebec as the 'face' of the scheme and injuring Quebec investors established the requisite connection.

Côté J. dissented, arguing that the majority conflated constitutional applicability of legislation with adjudicative jurisdiction, and that in the absence of express conferral of territorial jurisdiction by special statute, the C.C.Q.'s private international law rules exclusively govern, under which the FMAT lacked jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court considered whether article 35, paragraph 1 of Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure, which grants the Court of Québec exclusive jurisdiction over civil disputes valued at less than $85,000, is constitutional under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The majority held that the provision unconstitutionally infringes on the core jurisdiction of the Superior Court by creating a prohibited parallel court, given the breadth of the jurisdiction, its exclusivity, the absence of accessible appeal to the superior court, and a monetary ceiling approximately 29 percent above the updated historical limit.

The second question, concerning whether the Court of Québec must apply judicial deference standards when hearing administrative appeals, was found to be moot following the combined effect of Vavilov and new legislation.

The Court dismissed the appeals but suspended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months to allow the Quebec legislature to enact a constitutional replacement.

Following the dismissal of an appeal and motions for leave to act as representative plaintiffs by objecting class members (Home Depot and Wal-Mart), the representative plaintiffs and several defendants sought costs.

The objecting class members argued they were immune from costs under s. 31(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction exists under ss. 14(1) and (2) to award costs against class members who unsuccessfully seek to represent the class to object to a settlement.

The court awarded costs to the moving parties, finding the delay in filing submissions was justified.

Class members who are not representative plaintiffs have no direct right of appeal from an order approving a settlement in a certified class action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the decision in Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada remains good law and has not been superseded by subsequent decisions.

A settlement approval order is neither a judgment on common issues nor a determination of aggregate damages, and therefore class members cannot seek leave to appeal under section 30(5) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Permitting individual class members to appeal settlement approvals would introduce uncertainty into settlement negotiations, undermine the authority of representative plaintiffs and class counsel, and impede the resolution of class actions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve settlements with National Bank, Visa, and MasterCard in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix merchant discount fees.

The settlements provided for a total payment of $45 million, modifications to the 'No Surcharge Rule', and cooperation in the ongoing action against the remaining non-settling defendants.

Despite objections from Wal-Mart and Home Depot regarding the breadth of the releases, the court found the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the weaknesses in the plaintiffs' case against Visa and MasterCard under the Competition Act.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request.