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 newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Imran Kamal told his story about addiction, hoping to encourage the legal profession to be more open

Ontario Court of Justice welcomes four new justices: Frank, Hanna, Harris, Marcon

Ont. Superior Court denies disability benefits due to lack of a causal link to 40-year-old accident

Ont. Superior Court dismisses individual's insurance claim but allows corporate claim to proceed

Ontario Superior Court rejects lawyer's request to intervene in fatal vehicle collision

Slip-and-fall on black ice is an 'accident' under Statutory Benefits Schedule: Ont. Superior Court

Most Read Articles

Ontario Superior Court rejects lawyer's request to intervene in fatal vehicle collision

Imran Kamal told his story about addiction, hoping to encourage the legal profession to be more open

Slip-and-fall on black ice is an 'accident' under Statutory Benefits Schedule: Ont. Superior Court

Ontario Court of Justice welcomes four new justices: Frank, Hanna, Harris, Marcon