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 – Legislation – Interpretation – Requirements for certification – Application for certification as class proceeding dismissed by chambers judge – Appeal dismissed based on absence of common issues – Did the Court of Appeal err by finding that deceptive advertising does not infringe the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2 where the deception was allegedly verbally corrected later? – If so, should the Court remit the question of certification to the British Columbia Supreme Court? – Has the Court of Appeal’s modification of the burden of proof of a deceptive trade practice in B.C. extinguished the class action as a remedy for consumers in cases involving deceptive trade practices in B.C. and several other provinces? – Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, s. 4(1) – Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, s. 172

The applicants separately purchased furniture from 551148 B.C. Ltd., then known as the United Furniture Warehouse Limited (“UFW”). They alleged that the main reason for their purchase of furniture was the cash back voucher program offered to customers by UFW. Under the program, UFW gave its customers a voucher if they purchased specific products, UFW in turn paid a portion of the revenue from each transaction to a company called The Consumers Trust. The vouchers were eligible to be redeemed by customers from The Consumer Trust for an amount up to their face value after three years, provided the consumer complied with all of the conditions on the voucher. A successor to 551148, “new UFW” stopped offering the program in 2004 and shortly thereafter became aware that The Consumers Trust filed for bankruptcy. New UFW sent a notice to customers informing them that UFW was a separate legal entity from The Consumers Trust and that their contract was with The Consumers Trust, rather than with UFW. New UFW instituted an in-store customer credit program for customers who had been issued vouchers as a “customer satisfaction measure”.

The applicants claimed: (1) breach of warranty or collateral contract; (2) deceptive acts or practices or unconscionable acts or practices under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004; (3) negligent misrepresentation; and (4) negligence. They applied for certification under the Class Proceedings Act to proceed as a class action.

The respondents challenged certification on several grounds, including: (1) the pleadings disclosing no reasonable cause of action; (2) the absence of a sufficient evidentiary basis for certification; (3) the absence of common issues to be tried; and (4) on the basis that the class proceeding is not the preferable procedure.