CRTC did not provide viable procedure for resolution of issues

Ontario civil | Civil Procedure

CLASS ACTIONS

CRTC did not provide viable procedure for resolution of issues

Service agreement for pre-paid phone card typically provided that phone card would expire if it was not used or topped up within specified time. Unused balance on phone card would be forfeited to service provider after card expired. There was practice of phone card suppliers seizing any unused balance on prepaid phone cards one day sooner than expected. Proposed class action targeted consumer complaints about expiry of cell phone credits and loss of prepaid credits. Plaintiff brought action against phone company for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of unfair practice provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (Ont.). Plaintiff brought motion to certify action as class action. Motion granted. Plaintiff’s proposal was revised. Five of seven common issues were certified. Subclass of “consumers” was added because subclass raised common issues that could be determined in class proceeding, but were not shared by other members of class. It could not be said that breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims had no chance of success or that they were plainly and obviously bound to fail. Issues of “unfair practices” and “what remedies” were not certified. Claim based on unfair practice provisions of Act on facts as pleaded had no chance of success because s. 18 of Act did not apply on facts. Impugned notifications did not induce plaintiff to enter agreement and were not unfair practices that triggered s. 18 remedies because no agreement was made after or while defendant engaged in unfair practice. Given that there were over one million class members, class proceeding was preferable procedure. Access to justice and judicial economy justified aggregation of potential claims into class proceeding. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission did not provide viable procedure for resolution of issues.
Sankar v. Bell Mobility Inc. (Oct. 4, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., Edward Belobaba J., File No. CV-12-452867-CP) 235 A.C.W.S. (3d) 889.

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

How criminal lawyers make referrals

Man discharged from his fourth bankruptcy

Ontario law firms targeted by divorce settlement fraud attempts

Small claims court mediation program leads to fair outcomes, participants say

Open schedule at Competition Tribunal presents opportunity for commissioner, lawyer says

Students raise alarm on future of university legal clinics

Most Read Articles

New equality measure approved by Law Society of Ontario as the statement of principles gets repealed

Judges call out lack of support for legal aid, pro bono amid MAG presence

Chasm in opinions remains after statement of principles repeal

Law students, paralegals can continue working on the same summary conviction matters