Case information

Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification — Court of Appeal setting aside certification as class action — Whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action — Whether interference with use and enjoyment of public property gives rise to a valid claim in negligence for pure economic loss — Whether the proposed class was appropriate for certification — What is the evidentiary burden on a plaintiff seeking certification on the some basis in fact standard — Class Proceedings Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.5.

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.

In June 2012, a pipeline owned and operated by Plains Midstream Canada ULC released light sour crude oil into the Red Deer River. It migrated downstream to Gleniffer Lake, resulting in the temporary closure of the river and lake for recreational use.

At the time of the spill, Suzanne and Darin Rieger jointly owned two lots that were located at (but did not abut) Gleniffer Lake, which they were attempting to sell. The Riegers alleged that the real estate sale value they hoped to achieve was diminished because of the spill. They filed a Statement of Claim against Plains under the Class Proceedings Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.5, pleading six causes of action: negligence, strict liability, vicarious liability, nuisance, trespass, and breach of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12.

The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta held that the claim satisfied the criteria for certification set out by the CPA and ordered the certification of the class proceeding. The court noted that while the Riegers would have to overcome the presumption of the rule for relational economic loss, the issue was an unsettled area of law and dismissal at the certification stage was not justified.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the class action certification decision. The court noted that while deference is owed in certification decisions, the recent judgment in 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2020 SCC 35, which was not available to the chambers judge at the time of certification, clarified the law on sustainable claims for pure economic loss and led to the conclusion that the Riegers’ class action should not have been certified. The Court of Appeal held the claim did not disclose a valid cause of action, the class was too large and arbitrary to be certified, and a class action was not the preferable procedure.