Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
35553
Peter Aubrey Dennis, et al. v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2014-03-05 | Close file on Leave | |
| 2014-03-05 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Mr. Hassan Fancy, re: clarification of judgment | |
| 2014-02-14 | Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties | |
| 2014-02-14 | Judgment on leave sent to the parties | |
| 2014-02-13 | Correspondence received from, H.A. Fancy, re: clarification of judgment | Peter Aubrey Dennis |
| 2014-02-13 |
Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The motion for permission to file a sur-reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C55923, 2013 ONCA 501, dated July 31, 2013, is dismissed without costs. Dismissed, without costs |
|
| 2014-02-13 |
Decision on the miscellaneous motion Granted |
|
| 2014-01-06 | All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, LeB Ka Wa | |
| 2014-01-06 | Submission of miscellaneous motion, LeB Ka Wa | |
| 2013-11-12 | Notice of miscellaneous motion, (Book Form), To file a sur-reply (joint with the sur-reply), Completed on: 2013-11-12 | Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation |
| 2013-11-07 | Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, Completed on: 2013-11-07 | Peter Aubrey Dennis |
| 2013-10-25 | Book of authorities | Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation |
| 2013-10-25 | Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2013-10-25 | Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation |
| 2013-10-07 | Correspondence received from, Louis Sokolov dated 2013-10-07. Re: Acting as agents for the applicants | Peter Aubrey Dennis |
| 2013-09-30 | Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal | |
| 2013-09-30 | Book of authorities | Peter Aubrey Dennis |
| 2013-09-30 | Application for leave to appeal, Court of appeal order filed separately (2 volumes), Completed on: 2013-09-30 | Peter Aubrey Dennis |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Dennis, Peter Aubrey | Applicant | Active |
| Noble, Zubin Phiroze | Applicant | Active |
v.
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Dennis, Peter Aubrey
Counsel
Louis Sokolov
Jean-Marc Leclerc
30 Via Renzo Drive
Suite 200
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4S 0B8
Telephone: (905) 770-4942
FAX: (905) 737-5211
Party: Noble, Zubin Phiroze
Counsel
Louis Sokolov
Jean-Marc Leclerc
30 Via Renzo Drive
Suite 200
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4S 0B8
Telephone: (905) 770-4942
FAX: (905) 737-5211
Party: Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
Counsel
James W. E. Doris
1 First Canadian Place, 44th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1B1
Telephone: (416) 863-0900
FAX: (416) 863-0871
Agent
2600 - 160 Elgin St
P.O. Box 466, Stn "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1C3
Telephone: (613) 233-1781
FAX: (613) 788-3433
Email: henry.brown@gowlings.com
Summary
Keywords
None.
Summary
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.
Class proceedings — Certification of action as class proceeding — Whether there is a principled distinction between the instant case and Rumley v. British Columbia, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184 — Whether vulnerability can be inferred from self-exclusion — Whether this action should have been certified as a class proceeding — Whether this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57, Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58, and Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, 2013 SCC 59.
Mr. Dennis was a problem gambler. He signed a self-exclusion form provided by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (“OLG”). The form indicated that OLG undertook to use its “best efforts” to deny signatories entry to its facilities, but excluded liability if it failed to do so. Despite signing the form, Mr. Dennis continued to attend and gamble at OLG facilities on a regular basis for over three years and lost significant sums of money. He claimed that OLG failed to exercise its best efforts to exclude him from its facilities, framing an action in breach of contract, negligence, occupiers’ liability and, on behalf of his spouse, Ms. Noble, for damages under s. 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Mr. Dennis and Ms. Noble seek certification of their claims under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6. Mr. Dennis seeks to represent a primary class of approximately 10,428 individuals (Class A Members), defined as residents of Ontario and the United States who signed a self-exclusion form between December 1, 1999, and February 10, 2005, or their estates.
The motions judge refused certification. The Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal both dismissed appeals.
Lower court rulings
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
2010 ONSC 1332, CV-08-00356378-000
See file
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
See file
Court of Appeal for Ontario
C55923, 2013 ONCA 501
See file
Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
Factums on appeal
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available