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.
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).