Case information

Civil procedure — Class actions — Similar class actions commenced in three provinces with class membership not overlapping — Defendants to class actions seeking a single common issue proceeding in one province only — Defendants applying to expand the class in one province and to stay the proceedings in the other two provinces — Application to expand the class and to have a single common issue proceeding dismissed — What are the principles to be applied when an application is brought to Canadian courts to consolidate overlapping class actions (as to claims, defences, parties and common issues) in multiple provinces into a single common issues proceeding, so as to achieve judicial economy, fairness and efficiency? <br>

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.

The applicants are defendants in class proceedings commenced in British Columbia (“BC”), Quebec and Ontario. They are carriers who transport vehicles across oceans to Canada using specialized cargo ships. The respondent is the representative plaintiff in the BC action. The three actions each allege that class members were harmed by the same alleged international conspiracy regarding the supply of these vehicle shipping services. Class membership in the three actions does not overlap. In BC, the class proceeding was certified as a class of BC residents only. The applicants applied to the BC Supreme Court to amend the order certifying the class proceeding to expand the class so that there would be a single common issue proceeding (“SCIP”). This would have had the effect of consolidating the trial of common issues in the three class actions into a single class proceeding in BC. The order sought in BC was conditional on obtaining orders in Quebec and Ontario staying the class proceedings there to facilitate the SCIP in BC. The BC Supreme Court dismissed the application, being unpersuaded that proceeding with a SCIP in BC was appropriate in the circumstances, and in the face of the respondent’s proposal to consent to a SCIP in Quebec. The BC Court of Appeal concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but dismissed it, seeing no error in the exercise of the BC Supreme Court’s discretion to dismiss the application.