Alves et al. v. MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc. et al., (2011) 377 Sask.R. 55 (CA)

• Judge: Vancise, Richards and Caldwell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 08, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2011), 377 Sask.R. 55 (CA);2011 SKCA 117

Alves v. MyTravel Can. Holidays Inc. (2011), 377 Sask.R. 55 (CA);

    528 W.A.C. 55

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.042

Red Seal Vacations Inc. (appellant/defendant) v. Rosa Alves, Danielle Bercovitch, Brendan Kennedy, Inez Sanche, and Peter Tatham (respondents/plaintiffs) and MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc., First Choice Canada Inc., and Transat A.T. Inc. (non-parties/defendants)

(1920; 2011 SKCA 117)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Richards and Caldwell, JJ.A.

October 18, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against the defendant tour operators, including Red Seal. The statement of claim did not name a plaintiff who purchased a vacation from Red Seal. Red Seal moved to have the claim against it struck as disclosing no cause of action because there was no party plaintiff asserting a claim against it (Queen's Bench Rules, rule 173(a)).

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 348 Sask.R. 23, dismissed the motion. Red Seal appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 209.4

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Appointment or replacement of representative plaintiff - [See Practice - Topic 210.5 ].

Practice - Topic 210.5

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Procedure - Pre-certification matters (incl. particulars, production, pleadings, etc.) - The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against the defendant tour operators, including Red Seal - The statement of claim did not name a plaintiff who purchased a vacation from Red Seal - Red Seal moved to have the claim against it struck as disclosing no cause of action because there was no party plaintiff asserting a claim against it (Queen's Bench Rules, rule 173(a)) - A chambers judge refused to strike the claim - Red Seal appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court stated that one defendant in a multi-defendant action commenced under the Class Actions Act could not have the claim struck pursuant to rule 173(a) for failing to disclose a cause of action simply and only because there was no party plaintiff alleging a claim against that defendant - It was sufficient that a representative plaintiff asserted a cause of action on behalf of a class of persons whose putative members were alleged to have a claim against the defendant.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Practice - Topic 210.5 ].

Cases Noticed:

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., [2006] 12 W.W.R. 545; 282 Sask.R. 1; 2006 SKQB 328, refd to. [para. 3].

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2006), 282 Sask.R. 35; 2006 SKQB 331, refd to. [para. 3].

Ragoonanan et al. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2000] O.T.C. 873; 51 O.R.(3d) 603 (Sup. Ct.), not folld. [para. 17].

Hughes v. Sunbeam Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. (2002), 165 O.A.C. 68; 61 O.R.(3d) 433 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 19].

Campbell et al. v. Flexwatt Corp. et al., [1998] 6 W.W.R. 275; 98 B.C.A.C. 22; 161 W.A.C. 22 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 228 N.R. 197; 120 B.C.A.C. 80; 196 W.A.C. 80 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 20].

Furlan v. Shell Oil Co., [2000] 7 W.W.R. 433; 140 B.C.A.C. 235; 229 W.A.C. 235 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 269 N.R. 400; 155 B.C.A.C. 267; 254 W.A.C. 267 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 20].

Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. 551; [1996] 8 W.W.R. 485 (S.C.), affd. (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 51; 236 W.A.C. 51; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 67; 2000 BCCA 605, leave to appeal refused (2001), 276 N.R. 200; 162 B.C.A.C. 320; 264 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 20].

MacKinnon v. National Money Mart Co. et al., [2005] 1 W.W.R. 233; 203 B.C.A.C. 85; 332 W.A.C. 85; 2004 BCCA 472, folld. [para. 22].

Pauli et al. v. ACE INA Insurance et al. (2002), 322 A.R. 104; 2002 ABQB 715, refd to. [para. 25].

Gillespie v. Gessert, 2006 CarswellAlta 429, refd to. [para. 25].

Owners-Condominium Plan No. 0020701 v. Investplan Properties Inc. et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 192; 57 Alta. L.R.(4th) 310; 2006 ABQB 224, refd to. [para. 25].

Alberta Society for Pension Reform v. Alberta et al. (2007), 450 A.R. 191; 2008 ABQB 74, refd to. [para. 25].

Eaton et al. v. HMS Financial Inc. et al. (2008), 458 A.R. 282; 2008 CarswellAlta 1400; 2008 ABQB 631, refd to. [para. 25].

Bouchard v. Agropur Coopérative, 2006 QCCA 1342, refd to. [para. 25].

Bellan v. Curtis et al. (2007), 219 Man.R.(2d) 175; 2007 MBQB 221, refd to. [para. 25].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 27].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Actions Act, S.S. 2001, c. C-12.01, sect. 4(1) [para. 30]; sect. 6(1) [para. 39].

Queen's Bench Rules (Sask.) - see Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules.

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 173(a) [para. 12].

Counsel:

Mirilyn R. Sharp, for the appellant;

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., and Casey R. Churko, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on November 8, 2010, before Vancise, Richards and Caldwell, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Richards, J.A., delivered the following written reasons for the Court of Appeal on October 18, 2011.