Stephen R. Schachter

Direct and indirect purchasers sought certification of a class action alleging unlawful price-fixing of high-fructose corn syrup and pass-through overcharges.

The majority held indirect purchasers may in principle sue, but certification failed for that group because there was no evidentiary basis that at least two members could self-identify as having purchased affected products during the class period.

It also held the direct purchasers’ constructive trust claim was plain and obvious to fail for lack of proprietary nexus and inadequacy of monetary remedy.

The appeal by the proposed indirect purchaser class was dismissed and the respondents’ cross-appeal was allowed.

Dissenting reasons would have found an identifiable class and certified the indirect purchaser claims.

The appellant represented a class of investors who purchased strata lots in a Hilton hotel developed by the respondent.

The respondent also developed an adjacent Marriott hotel and offered different financial arrangements to the Marriott purchasers, including a guaranteed rate of return, which were not disclosed to the Hilton purchasers.

The appellant sued for misrepresentation under the Real Estate Act, common law negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove the omitted information was material to a reasonable investor.

The Court also found the respondent had a valid statutory defence, did not breach the standard of care for negligent misrepresentation, and did not breach its fiduciary duties as manager.

The respondents, members of a pension plan, sought to terminate the pension trust and distribute its $11 million surplus among themselves using the common law rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The employer, Rogers Communications Inc., had previously closed the plan, taken contribution holidays, and merged it with other plans.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier does not apply to employment pension trusts, which are heavily regulated by the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (PBSA).

The Court found that the PBSA provides a comprehensive scheme for plan termination and that the members must seek recourse through the Superintendent of Financial Institutions rather than relying on the common law rule to bypass the statutory framework.