ARTICLE
22 February 2016

Despite Vivendi, When Class Actions Are Overly Individual In Nature, Authorization Is Dismissed

MT
McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Contributor

McCarthy Tétrault LLP provides a broad range of legal services, advising on large and complex assignments for Canadian and international interests. The firm has substantial presence in Canada’s major commercial centres and in New York City, US and London, UK.
In Caron v. Fraternité provinciale des ouvriers en électricité, section locale 1676, 2016 QCCS 25, the Superior Court of Québec refused to authorize a class action on behalf of linesmen who had paid contributions to the Respondents, Unions and Québec Construction Board, pursuant to the Act Respecting Labour Relations, Vocational Training, and Workforce Management in the Construction Industry (the "Act R-20").
Canada Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Caron v. Fraternité provinciale des ouvriers en électricité, section locale 1676, 2016 QCCS 25, the Superior Court of Québec refused to authorize a class action on behalf of linesmen who had paid contributions to the Respondents, Unions and Québec Construction Board, pursuant to the Act Respecting Labour Relations, Vocational Training, and Workforce Management in the Construction Industry (the "Act R-20").

The Petitioner alleged that there was no legal relationship between the members of the putative group and the Respondents, given that the members of the putative group were working for enterprises under federal jurisdiction that were therefore not subject to the Act R-20.

The Court concluded that the class action could not be authorized, notably because the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that "the recourses of the members raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact". The Court found that the determination of whether the employer of each member of the putative group was of provincial or federal jurisdiction constituted a complex and individual question not amenable to class proceedings. Moreover, given that some of the contributions were voluntary, the Court would have had to determine whether the consent of each member of the putative group was vitiated. Finally, the Court found that an action for recovery of contributions, should it be granted, would mean that restitution of prestations would also have to be ordered. Such an issue was complex and individual in nature. For these reasons, the Court concluded that the Petitioner's action was more of an individual than a collective nature.

Caron supports the contention that a proposed class action that will necessitate several mini-trials on the merits, as it is often the case in proposed pharmaceutical class actions for example, is not amenable to class proceedings and should therefore be dismissed at the authorization stage.

To view the original article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More