Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure – Class actions – Certification - Common issues – Preferable procedure - Did the appellate courts err in concluding that the proposed common issues had a sufficient number of common elements to provide a basis for certification as a class action - Is the certification motion judge entitled to consider and weigh all of the evidence (expert and otherwise) adduced on the certification motion - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that mere allegations alone were sufficient to establish that there is “some basis in fact” for the proposed common issues - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not applying the “substantial ingredient” test in its preferable procedure analysis - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using sections 23 and 24 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 to circumvent the individual proof of harm requirement in section 36 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34.

Quizno’s Canada Restaurant Corporation, Quiz-Can LLC, and The Quizno’s Master LLC (“Quiznos”) are the franchisors of a chain of fast food restaurants in Canada. Gordon Food Service, Inc. and GFS Canada Company Inc. (“GFS”) are the distributors of food and other supplies to Quiznos restaurants. The respondents are former Quiznos franchisees in Ontario who seek to represent a class of all Canadian Quiznos franchisees in business on or after May 12, 2006. The respondents allege that they have been charged exorbitant prices for food and other supplies they are contractually required to purchase for use in their restaurants. They commenced an action asserting claims for breach of the price maintenance provisions of the Competition Act; civil conspiracy by Quiznos and GFS to fix prices, and breach of contract. The respondents brought a motion under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act to certify the action as a class action. Quiznos brought a motion to stay the proceedings.