Followers of Canadian class actions law will have longer to wait
for a decision in the much anticipated appeal from the Manitoba
Court of Appeal's decision in Meeking v. Cash Store Inc. et
al., 2013 MBCA 81. The appeal, which was scheduled
to be heard on January 12, 2015 and expected to bring clarity on
the issue of "national" class actions in Canada, was
recently adjourned sine die.
The significance of the Meeking decision is described
in two earlier posts, which can be found here and here. In summary, the Manitoba Court of Appeal
recognized a new presumptive connecting factor, namely the presence
of common issues across the class, by which a provincial superior
court could assume jurisdiction over non-residents in class
proceedings, with the result that a class settlement entered into
in Ontario could be binding on extra-provincial class members.
However, the Court went on to deny enforcement against some
plaintiffs in that case on procedural fairness grounds, because the
notice of settlement was deficient with respect to those
Both the representative plaintiff, Scott Meeking, and the
defendant, the Cash Store Inc., sought and were granted leave to appeal the decision to the
Supreme Court of Canada. Since that time, the Cash Store and
related companies have commenced reorganization proceedings in
Ontario under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement
Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 and obtained an
order staying proceedings against them.
In its decision released August 27, 2014, the Supreme
Court of Canada granted the representative plaintiff's motion
to adjourn the appeal hearing sine die until the stay
granted in the CCAA proceedings was no longer in effect,
or unless leave was granted in the CCAA proceedings
lifting the stay for the purpose of hearing the appeal to the
Supreme Court. As at the date of this post, no motion seeking to
lift the stay appears to have been brought.
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).