Anderson et al. v. Bell Mobility Inc., (2009) 524 A.R. 1

• Judge: Côté, Ritter and Watson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
• Case Date: April 21, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Northwest Territories
• Citations: (2009), 524 A.R. 1

Anderson v. Bell Mobility Inc. (2009), 524 A.R. 1; 545 W.A.C. 1 (NWTCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. MY.075

Bell Mobility Inc. (appellant/defendant) v. James Douglas Anderson and Samuel Anderson, on behalf of themselves and all other members of a class having a claim against Bell Mobility Inc. (respondents/plaintiffs)

(A-1-AP2008000013; 2009 NWTCA 3)

Indexed As: Anderson et al. v. Bell Mobility Inc.

Northwest Territories Court of Appeal

Côté, Ritter and Watson, JJ.A.

April 21, 2009.

Summary:

The Andersons sought to pursue a class action for damages against Bell Mobility Inc., alleging that they were charged each month for 911 emergency telephone service, but no such service existed anywhere in the Northwest Territories. Bell Mobility Inc. applied to strike the statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no cause of action.

The Northwest Territories Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2008] Northwest Terr. Cases Uned. 85; 2008 NWTSC 85, dismissed the application. Bell Mobility appealed.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: This case is being reported at this time at the request of a reader.

Practice - Topic 1300

Pleadings - General principles - Stating material facts - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 1463

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Requirement of disclosing cause of action - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The Andersons sought to pursue a class action for damages against Bell Mobility Inc., alleging that they were charged monthly for 911 emergency telephone service, but no such service existed anywhere in the Northwest Territories - Bell Mobility Inc. applied to strike the statement of claim for failure to disclose a cause of action - The certification judge refused to strike - Bell Mobility appealed - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court stated that the Territory had Rules of Court on pleadings stemming from the English Judicature Act of 1875, whereunder a plaintiff needed only to plead facts, not causes of action - Naming a cause of action, or the wrong cause of action, or only some of the causes of action, did not matter, if the facts pleaded would support one or more arguable causes of action - The court stated that the statement of claim clearly followed that tradition, though to help the reader, it had headings, and the headings mentioned two causes of action (i.e., breach of contract and unjust enrichment) - Further, the Andersons also demonstrated that another cause of action was arguable in the Northwest Territories (i.e., waiver of tort, and a fortiori if it was a remedy only).

Cases Noticed:

Wi-Lan Inc. et al. v. St. Paul Guarantee Insurance Co. (2005), 380 A.R. 256; 363 W.A.C. 256; 2005 CarswellAlta 1574; 2005 ABCA 352, refd to. [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chitty on Contracts (29th Ed. 2004), pp. 1671 to 1672 [para. 9].

Counsel:

R.J.C. Deane, for the appellant;

K.M. Landy and S.S. Marr, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard before Côté, Ritter and Watson, JJ.A., of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered orally, for the court, by Côté, J.A., on April 21, 2009.