Canada: Abuse Of Process: Carbon Copy Class Actions Stayed By Courts Coast To Coast

Last Updated: April 5 2016
Article by Kelli McAllister

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2018

Over the past year the Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Manitoba Courts of Appeal have each found the same action within their respective jurisdictions, brought by the same law firm on behalf of the same plaintiff class is an abuse of process.1 Unlike in ordinary litigation, where it is prima facie vexatious and oppressive for a plaintiff to sue concurrently in two courts on the same matter, overlapping and parallel class actions commenced in different jurisdictions are not, necessarily, abusive or vexatious. 2 A real issue arises however, when class counsel bring the same action in multiple jurisdictions as part of an overall litigation strategy to toll limitation periods, retain carriage of the matter, or achieve procedural advantages based on jurisdiction. In this case, class counsel filed across the country for all of the above reasons and as a "form of insurance for the possibility of an unsuccessful result" in the province in which the action was pursued. 3 In these circumstances, three appellate courts held that the case was an abuse of process and should be unconditionally stayed.

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has been sought from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, although the deadline for the respondents' materials was based on the timing of the Alberta Court of Appeal and Manitoba Court of Appeal decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada is faced with a unique situation: not only is same issue being considered by courts across Canada, but, in fact, the exact same case. It remains to be seen whether bringing carbon copy class actions across Canada as part of a litigation strategy and without the intention to pursue the action (except in one province), will likewise be condemned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The SAF Actions

In 2004, national class actions were filed by the same class counsel in every province, except PEI, alleging that wireless service providers improperly charged and collected "system access fees" ("SAF") from customers. Class counsel then only pursued certification in Saskatchewan 4 while it "parked" the actions in the other provinces. SAF class actions in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were left at the pleadings stage for the better part of a decade.

Within the last couple of years, the defendants have brought applications to have the SAF actions dismissed or stayed as an abuse of process across the country. Various courts have commented that the SAF actions were "essentially carbon copies" 5, "virtually identical" 6 and "similar in the extreme". 7 Courts in British Columbia, 8 Manitoba, 9 Nova Scotia, 10 Saskatchewan, 11 and Alberta, including appeal courts, have now grappled with the propriety of this litigation strategy.

SAF Litigation in Saskatchewan

In order to understand the most recent decisions, it is necessary to consider the SAF litigation in Saskatchewan and particularly the Frey/Chatfield action. It is this background which the Alberta Court of Appeal held "clearly exemplifies why the Turner action amounts to an abuse of process". 12

The certification application for Frey/Chatfield was initially heard and denied in 2006. 13 However, the Court granted leave to reapply for certification. The Court also held that, of the seven causes of actions advanced, only one was supported by the facts and properly grounded in the law: unjust enrichment. 14

A national class was subsequently certified for the unjust enrichment claim, which permitted non-residents to opt-in to the class. 15 What steps non-residents of a province must take in order to be included in a class action takes two forms in Canada: "opt-in" and "opt-out". Opt-out regimes presumptively include class members who are non-residents, unless they take positive steps to be excluded. Opt-in regimes provide the opposite: non-residents must take positive steps to be included.

This procedural difference between opt-in and opt-out regimes became a focal point for the Frey/Chatfield action because in 2008, the Saskatchewan Class Actions Act was amended from opt-in to opt-out. All class actions legislation has among its goals, access to justice. Where class actions legislation provides that non-residents are presumptively included, there is an argument that better access to justice may be provided to the class. 16

In the Frey/Chatfield action, class counsel then brought an application to convert the nationally certified opt-in class action to an opt-out action. The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the amendments to the Class Actions Act were not retroactive and dismissed the application. An appeal was brought out of time and the application to extend the time was denied by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. 17

In 2009, class counsel filed a second SAF class action in Saskatchewan, the Collins action. The Collins action alleged the same facts, causes of action, claim in damages and disgorgement, named the same defendants, and provided the same class definition and class period as the Frey/Chatfield action. The change, slight as it was, was that non-residents would have to opt-out of the class, rather than opt-in. The Court conditionally stayed the Collins action as an abuse of process. It was "nothing more than an attempt to redo what had already been done in the Frey action, presumably in the hope of somewhat different results." 18 A subsequent motion to lift the stay was refused. 19

Dormant SAF Actions

Meanwhile, the SAF actions in other provinces lay dormant except where the defendants brought applications to dismiss or stay the underlying SAF actions:

  • In British Columbia, the Drover action was stayed as an abuse of process in 2013. The rejected causes of action in the Frey/Chatfield certification were identical to the causes of action raised in the Drover action. An appeal was launched, not pursued, and ultimately dismissed. 20
  • In Alberta, the Pappas action was dismissed in 2013 for long delay.21 Class counsel then filed a second SAF action, the Turner action. A permanent stay was initially denied 22 but the decision was reversed, as discussed below.
  • In Manitoba, the Hafichuk-Walkin action was unconditionally stayed by the Court of Queen's Bench in 2014. 23 This decision was appealed, and the stay was upheld, as discussed below.
  • In Nova Scotia, the Supreme Court initially declined to grant a stay. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, held the Gillis action was an abuse of process and granted an unconditional stay. 24 Leave has been sought to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is against this backdrop, including the exhaustion of appeals to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada in relation to the Frey/Chatfield action, that the Courts of Appeal in Alberta and Manitoba considered whether the SAF actions in their respective provinces were an abuse of the courts process.

Alberta Court of Appeal Decision in Turner

The Alberta Court of Appeal held that when the overall circumstances, including the previous Pappas Action in Alberta, and the "decisions of Courts in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Manitoba are given the full faith and credit appropriate to our federal system" the Turner Action was an abuse. 25 In particular, it was an attempt by class counsel to subvert or make an end-run on Saskatchewan decisions in two ways: first, to obtain a national "opt-out" class and second, as a collateral attack on the Saskatchewan Courts' certification of a sole cause of action, unjust enrichment. 26

The Alberta Court of Appeal expressly agreed with the conclusion of Scanlan JA of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal that class counsel was attempting to obtain the very relief refused by the Saskatchewan courts: 27

This is an obvious case of [class counsel] repeatedly using lawsuits in different jurisdictions (as, in effect, the law firm promised to do) to get around the rulings in the Saskatchewan Courts. This is an abuse not just of the courts of Alberta but is also a trammeling of the reputation of class proceedings legislation, which serves important social goals. It also invites juridical dissonance in Canada.

Manitoba Court of Appeal Decision in Hafichuk-Walkin

The Manitoba Court of Appeal heard the appeal in Hafichuk-Walkin on March 9, 2015 and released its decision a year later. The Manitoba Court of Appeal acknowledged that the completion of proceedings in Nova Scotia and Alberta delayed the decision, and that decisions in Gillis and Turner were of assistance.28 The Manitoba Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion as the other courts: the SAF action was an abuse of process in the circumstances.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal also clarified, with respect to the distinction between parallel and duplicative class actions, that: 29

In our federation, parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions are permissible. However, multi-jurisdictional class actions are abusive when they are duplicative and no legitimate purpose would be served by allowing more than one class action to proceed on behalf of overlapping class members from one or more provinces.

The Court echoed the comments of the Nova Scotia and Alberta Courts of Appeal, that it is the context of each multi-jurisdictional class action which determines whether or not the degree of overlap between claims gives rise to an abuse of process. 30 Context also includes a consideration of the diligence in prosecuting the action. In this case, the action in Manitoba was parked for a decade while the Frey/Chatfield action was advanced in Saskatchewan. 31

With respect to the opt-in/opt-out distinction, the Court emphasized that the critical consideration is not the alleged potential unfairness to non-resident members of the class in the Frey/Chatfield action, but rather whether there are reasonable safeguards to guarantee the principle of access to justice based on the common law and the provisions of Saskatchewan's Class Actions Act. Hafichuk-Walkin was an abuse of process given the capacity and willingness of the Saskatchewan courts to protect the interests of Manitoba residents by ensuring adequate and timely notice of the Chatfield/Frey action.32

In an essentially carbon-copy finding to the Alberta and Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, the Manitoba Court of Appeal concluded:33

[Class counsel] is maintaining the SAF class actions filed outside of Saskatchewan, despite the fact that Frey/Chatfield action is certified and going to trial, as nothing more than a form of insurance for the possibility of an unsuccessful result in that jurisdiction on the claim of unjust enrichment. That is inappropriate and amounts to an abuse of process.

Will the Supreme Court of Canada Hear the Appeal?

Three appellate courts have concluded that duplicative, strategically managed class actions filed throughout Canada are an abuse of process. In 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada called on provincial legislatures to "pay more attention to the framework for national class actions and the problems they present. More effective methods for managing jurisdictional disputes should be established ... in the Canadian legal space".34 Some of those problems have manifested in the SAF litigation including upending the goal of judicial economy and replacing it with judicial inefficiency.

As mentioned above, the leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada is pending. With the Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision in Hafichuk-Walkin, the 90-day clock for the respondents to file their materials has now started. We will update you on that leave decision in our regular SCC Monitor blog posts.

Footnotes

1 Hafichuk-Walkin v BCE Inc, 2016 MBCA 32 ("Hafichuk-Walkin"); Turner v Bell Mobility, 2016 ABCA 21 ("Turner"); BCE Inc v Gillis, 2015 NSCA 32 ("Gillis"). This action was briefly addressed in our earlier blog post entitled "10 Years, 9 Provinces, 1 Claim and 5 Different Results". Note that while the lower courts were previously divided on this case, the appeal courts have each reached the same decision.

2 See e.g., Turner, ibid at para 6.

3 Hafichuk-Walkin, supra note 1 at para 56.

4 For background on the Saskatchewan action, see Chatfield v Bell Mobility Inc, 2014 SKQB 82 at paras 3-15.

5 Hafichuk-Walkin v BCE Inc, 2014 MBQB 175 at para 4 ("Hafichuk-Walkin QB").

6 Gillis, supra note 1 at para 4.

7 Collins v BCE Inc, 2010 SKQB 74 at para 5.

8 Drover v BCE Inc, 2013 BCSC 1341; appeal statutorily dismissed 2015 BCCA 132 (one JA) ("Drover").

9 Hafichuk-Walkin QB, supra note 5 aff'd Hafichuk-Walkin, supra note 1.

10 Gillis, supra note 1.

11 Collins v BCE Inc, 2010 SKQB 74 at paras 1, 3-6, 11-17.

12 Turner, supra note 1 at para 9.

13 Frey v BCE Inc, 2006 SKQB 328.

14 Ibid at paras 1, 46, 81-98.

15 Frey v BCE Inc, 2007 SKQB 328.

16 See e.g., Hafichuk-Walkin, supra note 1 at para 12.

17 The Class Actions Amendment Act, 2007, SS, 2001, c 21.01; Frey v Bell Mobility Inc, 2009 SKQB 165 at paras 15-24; Frey v Bell Mobility Inc, 2013 SKCA 26 ("Frey").

18 Collins, supra note 11 at paras 1, 3-6, 11-17.

19 Ibid at paras 7-10.

20 Drover, supra note 8.

21 Pappas v BCE Inc, 2014 ABQB 122 ("Pappas").

22 Turner v Bell Mobility, 2015 ABQB 169 at paras 7-11.

23 Hafichuk-Walkin QB, supra note 5.

24 Gillis v BCE Inc, 2014 NSSC 279 rev'd 2015 NSCA 32.

25 Turner, supra note 1 at para 36 (note that the Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision in Hafichuk-Walkin was on reserve when the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Turner).

26 Frey, supra note 17; Turner, supra note 1 at paras 37-39.

27 Ibid, Turner, at para 42.

28 Hafichuk-Walkin, supra note 1 at paras 13-18.

29 Ibid, at para 40 [underline in original; citations omitted].

30 Ibid, at para 41ff.

31 Ibid, at paras 44-47.

32 Ibid, at para 55.

33 Ibid at para 56 [citations omitted]

34 Canada Post Corp v Lépine, 2009 SCC 16 at para 57.

To view original article, please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions