The trend showing a more rigorous application of the
certification criteria in B.C., particularly in respect of the
pleadings and identifiable class requirement, has continued with
the B.C.S.C.'s reasons for judgment in Unlu v. Air
Canada, 2015 BCSC 1453.
In this set of cases, individual representative plaintiffs had
purchased tickets for international air travel from each of five
different defendant airlines. The tickets included amounts
described as airfare as well as variously described taxes and fees,
which included amounts for fuel surcharges. The five actions
alleged that the manner in which fuel surcharges are displayed and
described on passengers' ticket receipts amounts to a deceptive
act or practice contrary to the Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act (the "BPA").
In detailed reasons, Adair J. reviewed the plaintiffs'
pleadings and applied the B.C.C.A.'s recent reasons in the
Ileman Appeal (2015 BCCA 260). Adair J. concluded that the
plaintiffs did plead a reasonable claim for a declaration or an
injunction in relation to the alleged deceptive conduct, but failed
to plead sufficient material facts to make out a reasonable claim
for a restoration order, unjust enrichment or punitive damages.
Adair J. further held that both of the two proposed,
alternative, class definitions were unnecessarily broad and
included persons who will not have any claim under the BPA. This
conclusion stemmed from the failure of the proposed class
definitions to account for the consumer's purpose –
whether personal or business – in entering into the impugned
"consumer transaction", as required by the BPA. The
plaintiff therefore failed to show there was some basis in fact
that there is an identifiable class.
Defendants in B.C. continue to have success through focusing
their certification opposition on the pleadings and class
definition requirements of certification.
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).