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 – Conditions for authorizing action – What is the appropriate level of analysis regarding prescription/statute of limitations at the authorization/certification stage? What is the appropriate level of scrutiny thereof at the appeal level? – When does prescription/statute of limitations begin to run in a civil action where the problems relating to a design defect appear, are resolved, and then re-occur again? – When should a reasonably prudent person be deemed to be aware of all of the essential elements of a right of action? At what point should this same person conclude that what he thought was a maintenance issue is really a design defect? – How does the doctrine of fraudulent concealment of the part of the Respondents (or their agents) affect the above determinations? – Are all of the provinces applying this doctrine consistently? – If a representative plaintiff is adjudged to be inadequate, what is the appropriate procedure? Is there a less draconian remedy other than a complete dismissal of the class proceeding where there is evidence that the problem is widespread and several hundred other class members have been identified? – What deference should the appeal court give to the motion judge’s determinations of fact where no viva voce evidence was ever adduced and all the proof was made by out-of-court examinations and the production of documents only? – Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25, art. 1003.

The Applicant bought a Whirlpool front-loading washing machine in April 2004. In 2005, he began to notice foul odours emanating from the machine and complained to the Respondents, who advised him to contact the retailer. The latter provided maintenance instructions and sold him a five-year extended warranty. On 21 December 2009, the Consumer Law Group, through an initial proposed representative, acting as petitioner, launched a class action against the Respondents patterned after similar class actions in other jurisdictions. The Applicant replaced that initial proposed representative on February 14, 2013.