On June 9, 2014, the Court authorized the institution of a class
action against Bell Canada and Bell ExpressVu. It had dismissed the
putative class action brought against Bell Mobility because there
was no legal relationship between the proposed class representative
and Bell Mobility as there was no contract between them.
Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bank
of Montreal v.Marcotte1, which
was rendered shortly after the decision authorizing the institution
of the class action, the Plaintiff alleged that the class action
against Bell Mobility was now possible.
Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a motion to add Bell Mobility as
a defendant, even though the Court had previously specifically
ruled against this.
On November 25, 2015, Justice Beaugé of the Superior
Court dismissed this motion2. Justice Beaugé
explains that, based on the doctrine of res judicata, the
Court could not revise its own decision in order to apply
Justice Beaugé also explains that, since it was known to
the parties that a Supreme Court decision was about to be rendered
in Marcotte, the fact that the Petitioner did not appeal
the decision within the appropriate deadline now makes it
impossible to revise the decision. Bell Mobility acquired rights
with that judgement. The Superior Court does not have the
discretionary power to reverse its own decisions and thereby play
the role of the Court of Appeal. Based on the same principles, the
Court held that the Petitioner could not seek an amendment that
would have for effect to overrule a previous decision rendered in
the same file.
Moreover, the Court must apply the law in effect at the time it
renders a decision. Furthermore, the principle of the stability of
judgments gives legal certainty to the public and allows disputes
to be settled so that they are not constantly called into
Finally, based on section 1022 CCP, the Court can only revise
its judgments if the conditions of paragraph a) or c) of article
1003 CCP are no longer met and if a "new fact" arose
since the authorization to institute a class action. Since the
motion concerned paragraph b), Justice Beaugé stated that
the Court could not revise the June 9, 2014 decision.
Justice Beaugé explains that a Supreme Court decision
does not constitute a new fact which would have allowed the Court
to reconsider the decision. Thus, since the Plaintiff did not
demonstrate the occurrence of a new fact since the authorization
judgment, the judgment previously rendered must stand.
This judgment confirms the importance of the stability of
judgments. It will avoid the temptation of certain plaintiffs to
revisit decisions previously rendered on the basis of a new
favourable jurisprudential development which occurred at a later
point in time.
 Bank of Montreal v.Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55.
 Charbonneau Daneau v. Bell Canada,
2015 QCCS 5585.
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).