Case information

Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification — Court of Appeal setting aside order certifying a class action on the basis that claim for economic loss disclosed no reasonable cause of action in negligence and provided no basis in fact of any compensable loss — Whether pleadings addressing the imminence of a danger or imminence of a physical harm are required for claims in negligence of pure economic loss — Whether pleadings of any loss, which may include the diminished resale value of a subject class vehicle, are compensable damages in particular circumstances — Whether pleadings are sufficient to ground a claim alleging vehicle manufacturer breached provincial consumer protection legislation in particular circumstances — Whether the evidentiary threshold to support a common issue in a claim of alleged product liability requires only one category of evidence, being some evidence that there is a common defect — Whether, in vehicle defect claims, this threshold can be satisfied with evidence of recalls issued by vehicle manufacturers or governmental bodies —Whether warranties are extinguished by recalls or other fixes — The Class Actions Act, S.S. 2001, c. C.-12.01, s. 6(1).

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 applicant, Ms. Evans, launched a proposed class action against the respondents, General Motors of Canada Company and General Motors LLC (collectively, “GM”) on behalf of all persons in Canada who had purchased or leased a 2011 or newer Chevrolet Cruze automobile manufactured by GM. She alleged that GM had breached various common law and statutory duties in designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling the Cruze, and particularly in relation to its cooling system, thereby causing economic loss to the members of the proposed class. Ms. Evans’s action was principally grounded in the tort of negligence. The certification judge certified the action as a class proceeding. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order. It concluded that Ms. Evans’s claim for economic loss disclosed no reasonable cause of action in negligence. It also concluded that the certification judge erred in his preferability analysis. It determined that Ms. Evans provided no basis in fact of any compensable loss. Certification of a negligence claim in the absence of evidence of compensable harm was not a preferable procedure because it would not further the objectives of judicial economy or access to justice.