Canada: Confusion Over "Some Basis In Fact" Rolls On In British Columbia Court Of Appeal's RoRo Decision

Last Updated: June 13 2019
Article by Paul-Erik Veel

Certification is a vital step in every class action. In order for a class action to be certified, the proposed representative plaintiff must show "some basis in fact" to believe that the certification requirements are met. These requirements include that there are common issues of fact or law and that a class action would be the preferable procedure for resolving those common issues. The Supreme Court of Canada was clear in its decision in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation that the some basis in fact standard is less onerous than a balance of probabilities standard. However, how that standard is to be applied remains a source of great difficulty for courts. In cases where the plaintiff's certification motion relies heavily on expert evidence to establish the existence of common issues, the some basis in fact standard has proved particularly challenging to apply. While the Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned that certification should not become a battle of the experts, there remains significant litigation over what the quality of expert evidence must be in order for the some basis in fact standard to be met. The recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Ewert v Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha highlights how courts have been grappling with this issue.

At issue in that case was a proposed price-fixing class action against marine shippers who transported cars and other vehicles overseas to Canada using roll-on/roll-off (RoRo) vessels. The plaintiff alleged that there was a conspiracy between marine shippers using RoRo vessels to raise prices, which had the effect of increasing the price of vehicles that were later purchased in Canada. The plaintiff brought an application in British Columbia to certify the proceeding as a class action on behalf of all British Columbia residents who during the class period of February 1, 1997 to December 31, 2012 purchased Vehicle Carrier Services from the defendants, or purchased or leased a new vehicle in British Columbia transported by RoRo.

As in many price-fixing class actions, a central issue on the certification motion was whether there was a methodology the plaintiff could show that loss had been suffered on a class-wide basis by all purchasers. This is frequently the central issue at the certification motion in price-fixing class actions. Where a loss cannot be established on a class-wide basis, courts often hold that either there are not sufficient common issues for the class proceeding to be certified and that a class proceeding would not be the preferable procedure.

This question of class-wide loss in turn routinely depends on expert opinion evidence, typically from economists. It is routine for plaintiffs to deliver expert economic evidence setting out models explaining how loss can be established on a class-wide basis and provide a means of estimating that loss. Defendants in turn deliver opinions from experts who opine that loss cannot be established on a class-wide basis and the plaintiffs' experts' methodologies are not workable.

In the present case, at first instance, the British Columbia Supreme Court accepted the regression model put forward by the plaintiff's experts to establish class-wide loss as a plausible methodology. However, the motions judge refused to certify the proceeding as a class action, holding that there was no evidence that the data necessary to implement the plaintiff's expert's model was available. In so holding, the motions judge relied on the statement of Justice Rothstein in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pro-Sys where he held that, "[t]here must be some evidence of the availability of the data to which the methodology is to be applied." Here, the motions judge held there was no such evidence and dismissed the certification motion.

The plaintiff appealed the decision. In a decision released on May 29, 2019, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and certified the proceeding as a class action.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal reiterated that the some basis in fact standard is a low bar. The Court of Appeal expressly contrasted the "some basis in fact" with there being no basis in fact, suggesting that certification will only be denied where there is absolutely no evidence on a particular element of certification.

As it pertains to expert evidence of class-wide loss, at paragraph 104 of its decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal set the bar very low for what the plaintiff must show:

It is required that a plaintiff lead some evidence that there is a plausible and realistic methodology to establish loss on a class-wide basis, but where the methodology consists of an econometric model, it is not necessary to build the model or identify with precision what information will be used to populate the model, as long as there is some evidence that information will be available to do so.

On the facts of this case, the Court of Appeal held that that standard was met. The plaintiff's expert had opined that "It should be possible to obtain a number of documents as well as a significant amount of data on the pricing and costing of Vehicle Carrier Services from the defendants themselves (contracts or records of sales), at the time of pre-trial discovery." The Court held that this evidence was sufficient to meet the some basis in fact standard. It was not necessary for the expert to identify the precise data that would be used to populate the model or to specify exactly what the source of that data would be. Rather, it was sufficient for the expert to describe in general terms what type of data would be used, and to suggest that it may be available from a particular source.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision confirms that plaintiffs face a low bar as to the quality of the evidence they must lead at a certification hearing. However, there are good reasons that the evidentiary bar for certification should not be too low.

While courts have confirmed that the certification process is not meant to address the substantive merits of the case, the certification motion is clearly meant to ensure that the case can meaningfully move forward as a class action without becoming unmanageable. The central requirement for a case proceeding as a class action is that there are meaningful common issues whose resolution will impact all or nearly all members of the class. This should mean requiring plaintiffs to establish on a balance of probabilities that there are common issues. However, that has not been the standard applied by Canadian courts: to the contrary, the Supreme Court of Canada specifically confirmed as recently as 2014 in Pro-Sys that the "some basis in fact" standard is lower than the balance of probabilities. This is unfortunate.

If a court cannot confidently say that it is more likely than not that class members have issues that can be resolved on a common basis and that will substantially advance the litigation, then a class proceeding has a high risk of degrading into an expensive morass of individual issues. Where a certification judge cannot conclude that common issues exist on a balance of probabilities, how can that judge expect a trial judge to later adjudicate on those issues on a common basis at trial? And how can the certification judge expect the parties to lead evidence on those common issues, when the court cannot even confidently say that such issues are more likely common across the class than not?

In price-fixing cases in particular, courts should be able to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the loss as a result of the alleged conspiracy is in fact a common issue across all class members in order for the case to be certified. If the court cannot be satisfied of this, a class action is not an appropriate mechanism by which the case can proceed, as the case will break down into individualized inquiries as to whether particular purchasers suffered losses. This should mean that plaintiffs should be able to persuade the court that the expect evidence actually shows class-wide loss, not that it merely could do so at a later time. That requirement does not necessarily mean estimating the amount of the loss suffered by class members, but it might mean populating a model sufficiently to show that all or nearly all class members have in fact suffered a loss. Unfortunately, this has not been the standard that courts have set in these cases.

Courts have been resistant to placing too high a burden on plaintiffs in establishing the certification requirements, noting that class certification is intended to take place at an early stage in the proceedings when broad discovery has not yet occurred. Consequently, courts have been concerned about whether it would be unfair to require plaintiffs to prove their case at such an early stage. This ignores two important points.

First, while it is true that there is no automatic right pre-certification discovery of all relevant documents, plaintiffs still have significant tools to seek access to information relevant to the certification motion. Tools available include resorting to cross-examinations on affidavits, conducting examinations witnesses on pending motions, and reliance on courts' broad powers to control the conduct of class proceedings to order the production of relevant documents.

Second, as described above, absolving plaintiffs of the obligation to lead evidence that makes it more likely than not that loss can be established on a class-wide basis does not ultimately make anything easier for courts or plaintiffs. Rather, it just kicks the commonality question down the line for the parties and the common issues trial judge to grapple with, resulting in many cases being certified as class actions where in fact there are no meaningful common issues. This is not desirable: only in cases where it is more likely than not that a common issues judge will be able confidently give a single answer to a question on a class-wide should be certified.

Continue reading original source

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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