The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.
The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding a failure to plead material facts for a reasonable cause of action and an insufficient evidentiary basis for common issues.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the claim lacked material facts to support a Canadian conspiracy and that there was no sufficient factual basis for the proposed common issues, particularly given the distinct Canadian and U.S. tuna markets.
The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the lower court's order effectively ended the proceeding.
