Outside of Canada, there were several appeal decisions from the
U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 that may well prove to have an impact
here in Canada.
In regards to class action waiver clauses, a six justice
majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held, in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant, that the Court could not invalidate an express
class action waiver in an arbitration agreement and so the claims
should be continued by arbitration (although, the three remaining
justices handed down a very strong dissent). This is an issue that
has had little comment so far in Canada and has yet to be
considered by our own Supreme Court. (See previous discussion
In the competition law realm, the U.S. Supreme Court also issued
its judgment in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, overturning
certification of an antitrust class action. This ruling emphasized
the importance of scrutinizing the plaintiff's expert evidence
at certification, even where it overlaps with the merits, and
continues the trend towards a more rigorous review of U.S.
certification motions as seen in other U.S. cases. Given the
significant impact which prior U.S. Supreme Court cases have had on
competition class actions in Canada it is likely that Comcast will
play an important role in future litigation in this country. (See
In the securities law field, the recent U.S. Supreme Court
ruling in the Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans
& Trust Funds securities fraud class action is an
important milestone in the evolution of the defences to securities
disclosure class actions in the U.S., and potentially in Canada.
The Court addressed two questions relevant to public issuers: the
necessity for plaintiff investors to prove that alleged
misrepresentations to the market by companies are material, and
that they were relied upon. The dissent in this case show that
debate on these issues will continue and points to potential
changes in the law favourable to public issuers facing class
actions. (See previous comment
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).