Alves et al. v. MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc. et al.

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Judge: Ottenbreit, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2009 SKQB 77
• Citation: 2009 SKQB 77,(2009), 335 Sask.R. 164 (QB),[2009] SJ No 113 (QL),335 Sask R 164,[2009] S.J. No 113 (QL),(2009), 335 SaskR 164 (QB),335 SaskR 164,335 Sask.R. 164
• Date: 17 February 2009

Alves v. MyTravel Can. Holidays Inc. (2009), 335 Sask.R. 164 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.013

Rosa Alves, Marie Bonner, Dale Bonner, Robert Brandt, Kelly Brezinski, Darren McLelland, Corrado Paina, Denis Sanche, Inez Sanche, Barton Smith, Michelle Smith, Janusz Sprawny, Peter Tatham, Laurie Wilson, Cindy Wright, Joe Wurm, and Rebecca Wurm, and John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, John Doe V, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, Jane Doe IV, Jane Doe V, and Others to Be Added John Does, and Jane Does (plaintiffs) v. Sunquest , MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc., Carrying on Business as Sunquest , Signature Vacations First Choice Canada Inc., Carrying on Business as Signature Vacations, World of Vacations , Transat A.T. Inc., Carrying on Business as World of Vacations and Air Transat Holidays , Red Seal Vacations Inc., Carrying on Business as Sunwing, and Airtransat Holidays (defendants)

(2005 Q.B.G. No. 153; 2009 SKQB 77)

Indexed As: Alves et al. v. MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Ottenbreit, J.

February 17, 2009.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sought to have an action certified against a number of defendants. Three of the defendants sought to have preliminary motions scheduled and heard in advance of the hearing of the certification motion.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused the defendants' requests holding that the motions and arguments would be heard with the certification motion.

Practice - Topic 210.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Procedure - General (incl. venue, discovery, preliminary motions, etc.) - The plaintiffs sought to have an action certified - Three of the defendants sought to have preliminary motions respecting dismissal of the actions against them or striking pleadings heard in advance of the hearing of the certification motion - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it was not in the interests of the administration of justice that a sequential approach be used for class actions as a general rule - Generally speaking, to promote judicial economy, these kinds of motions could be heard at a certification hearing or immediately prior to it with the decision to be given at the same time as the certification - To obtain an exception to the general rule that the certification motion should be the first motion heard on a class action, the defendants would have to provide a compelling reason for the court to treat matters sequentially - What was a compelling reason would vary with the individual facts of a case - Time sensitivity was one such example but it was not a factor here - The conduct and proceedings of the case as a whole should be looked at balancing the rights of the parties - In this case, all of the defendants' motions should be heard at the certification when all the issues could be fully argued and the court would have the maximum facts and law at its disposal - There were no compelling reasons in this case to hear these motions in advance of the certification.

Cases Noticed:

Holland v. Saskatchewan et al. (2006), 277 Sask.R. 131; 2006 SKQB 99, refd to. [para. 3].

Rosetim Investments Inc. v. BCE Inc., [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 212; 2008 SKQB 440, refd to. [para. 3].

Attis et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 334; 75 O.R.(3d) 302 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 883; 2008 BCSC 1263, refd to. [para. 6].

2038724 Ontario Ltd. v. Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corp., [2008] O.J. No. 2276 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

Moyes v. Fortune Financial Corp. et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. B66 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Englund et al. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. (2007), 299 Sask.R. 298; 408 W.A.C. 298; 2007 SKCA 62, refd to. [para. 9].

Cross et al. v. Saskatchewan Water Corp. et al. (2003), 230 Sask.R. 70 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Roberts et al. v. Saskatchewan et al. (2007), 294 Sask.R. 266 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Campbell et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 233; 2008 FC 353, refd to. [para. 11].

Hoffman et al. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. (2002), 227 Sask.R. 63; 287 W.A.C. 63; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 542; 2002 CarswellSask 654; 2002 SKCA 120, refd to. [para. 13].

Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al. (2008), 282 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 177; 868 A.P.R. 177; 2008 NLTD 207, refd to. [para. 15].

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2006), 282 Sask.R. 35; 2006 SKQB 331, refd to. [para. 16].

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2006), 282 Sask.R. 1; 2006 SKQB 328, refd to. [para. 18].

Brooks v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 329 Sask.R. 176; 2009 SKQB 54, refd to. [para. 19].

Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 391; 2005 CarswellOnt 2260 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

2038724 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corp. et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 311; 45 C.P.C.(6th) 375 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Smith Estate et al. v. National Money Mart Co. et al., [2008] O.T.C. Uned. B73 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

Mirilyn R. Sharp, for the defendant, Red Seal Vacations Inc.;

Sally Gomery, for the defendant, MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc.;

Brad D. Hunter, for the defendant, Transat A.T. Inc.;

Timothy J. Law, for the defendant, First Choice Canada Inc.

These motions were heard before Ottenbreit, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on February 17, 2009.