Case information

Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification — Lower courts declining to order certification of class proceeding due to lack of common issues — 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 — 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.

Over the course of numerous years, the respondent, FCA Canada Inc. (“FCA”) issued recall notices covering defects in many different models of vehicles that were sold in Canada. The applicant, Corrine Kane, had purchased one of those vehicles, was dissatisfied with the repairs, and claims to have suffered various losses as a result. She initiated an action and sought to have it certified as a class action covering the owners and lessees of approximately 900,000 vehicles affected by 24 different recall notices. The certification judge dismissed her application. He assessed the two most significant aspects of the certification application as being the causes of action and the common issue requirements. He determined that the statement of claim disclosed causes of action in negligence, but only to the extent that the act giving rise to the negligence allegedly caused personal injury, and under The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, S.S. 2013, c. C-30.2. However, he found that there were no common issues that will help to resolve the claim given that the only common thread was that the class vehicles were subject to the listed recalls. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.