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 – Abuse of process – Damages resulting from an illegal strike conducted simultaneously by baggage handlers at three different international airports (Quebec, Montréal, Toronto) – Class action in civil responsibility against the trade unions representing the baggage handlers – Motion to dismiss class action and application for leave to appeal dismissed – Does an action based on allegations that are hypothetical and speculative constitute an improper use of procedure under s. 54.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c. C-25 ? – Should these principles apply differently in the context of a certified class action proceedings?

The respondent, Lory-Ann Trepanier-Bouchard filed a motion to institute a class action in civil responsibility against the applicants, both trade unions, with respect to the unlawful strike conducted by their members working as baggage handlers at Pierre-Trudeau Airport in Montreal on March 2012. The respondent and each member of the class action are claiming moral damages for an eight hour delay created by the applicants in order to secure an alternative flight for the one cancelled by the strike. The applicants filed a motion for dismissal pursuant to s. 54.1 of the Code of civil procedure against the institution of a class action before the Superior Court. The applicants argued, in vain, that since the examination for discovery of the respondent showed a complete lack of factual element in support of the allegation of fault, the claim was therefore abusive for being hypothetical and speculative. The Superior Court dismissed the motion as being ill-founded or at least premature. Although the examination for discovery of the respondent is not enough to establish the responsibility of the applicants, it remains necessary to give the respondent the opportunity to provide evidence of the allegations through judicial process. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.