Bisaillon v. Concordia University, (2006) 348 N.R. 201 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | Thursday May 18, 2006 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2006), 348 N.R. 201 (SCC);2006 SCC 19;DTE 2006T-508;EYB 2006-105515;[2006] 1 SCR 666;266 DLR (4th) 542;348 NR 201;[2006] SCJ No 19 (QL);JE 2006-1081 |
Bisaillon v. Concordia Univ. (2006), 348 N.R. 201 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. MY.030
Concordia University (appellant) v. Richard Bisaillon, Régie des rentes du Québec, Concordia University Faculty Association (CUFA), John Hall and Howard Fink (respondents)
Concordia University Faculty Association (CUFA) (appellant) v. Richard Bisaillon, Régie des rentes du Québec, Concordia University, John Hall and Howard Fink (respondents)
(30363; 2006 SCC 19; 2006 CSC 19)
Indexed As: Bisaillon v. Concordia University
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ.
May 18, 2006.
Summary:
The employer offered a pension plan to all its unionized and non-unionized employees. All collective agreements in place mentioned in some way that the pension plan was available. The employer unilaterally amended the pension plan. Allegedly, the employer wrongfully used plan funds to pay for contribution holidays and administrative costs, and to finance early retirement packages. A unionized employee moved for authorization to institute a class action against the employer to annul the amendments and to have the funds taken under the amendments returned. A union moved for a declinatory exception.
The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported (2003), 36 C.C.P.B. 180, granted the motion. The court ruled that the plan was a benefit provided for in the collective agreement, and the dispute therefore resulted from the application of that agreement. Consequently, only a grievance arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the case. The plaintiff appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (2004), 42 C.C.P.B. 161, allowed the appeal. The employer and the union appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the judgment at first instance.
Labour Law - Topic 7
General principles and definitions - General - Collective representation system - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the collective representation system in labour law - The court stated that the Quebec Labour Code gave certified unions a set of rights, the most important of which was most certainly the monopoly on representation - Individual negotiation of conditions of employment was proscribed -In return, employees improved their position in the balance of power with the employer - Finally, the collective representation system in labour law required the employer to recognize the certified union and to enter in good-faith collective bargaining exclusively with it - Employers acquired the right to industrial peace for the term of the collective agreement - See paragraphs 23 to 28.
Labour Law - Topic 7
General principles and definitions - General - Collective representation system - The employer offered a pension plan to all its unionized and non-unionized employees - All collective agreements in place mentioned in some way that the pension plan was available - The employer unilaterally amended the pension plan - Allegedly, the employer wrongfully used plan funds to pay for contribution holidays and administrative costs, and to finance early retirement packages - A unionized employee moved for authorization to institute a class action against the employer to challenge the amendments - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a class action was an inappropriate remedy - The subject matter of the dispute was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction under each collective agreement - The employer's unilateral amendments and the question of their validity were linked implicitly if not explicitly to the collective agreements - To authorize a class action here would be to deny the principles of the exclusivity of the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the union's monopoly on employee representation - The Quebec Superior Court was correct in declining jurisdiction and dismissing the employee's motion - See paragraphs 1 to 65.
Labour Law - Topic 7041
Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the subject-matter jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators and stated that it had "clearly adopted a liberal position according to which grievance arbitrators have a broad exclusive jurisdiction over issues relating to conditions of employment, provided that those conditions can be shown to have an express or implicit connection to the collective agreement" - See paragraphs 30 to 38.
Labour Law - Topic 7041
Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the in personam jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators - The court stated that an arbitrator had no jurisdiction to hear claims of persons to whom the collective agreement did not apply - However, the mere fact that the same issue arose in the collective agreements of several different bargaining units with a single employer did not oust the jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator in favour of the ordinary courts - See paragraphs 39 to 41.
Labour Law - Topic 7041
Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Arbitration - Jurisdiction or powers of arbitrator or board - General - [See second Labour Law - Topic 7].
Labour Law - Topic 7201
Industrial relations - Collective agreement -Enforcement - Civil action - When available - [See second Labour Law - Topic 7 and Quebec Procedure - Topic 9001].
Quebec Procedure - Topic 9001
Class action - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature of the class action recourse provided under arts. 999 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.) - The court stated that the class action was a procedural vehicle whose use neither modified nor created substantive rights - It did not alter the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals - Determining whether such a proceeding lay in respect of issues relating prima facie to the law of collective labour relations thus required a careful review of the institutions and fundamental rules specific to this branch of law - See paragraphs 15 to 22.
Cases Noticed:
Nadon v. Anjou (Ville d'), [1994] R.J.Q. 1823 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
Comité d'environnement de La Baie Inc. v. Société d'électrolyse et de chimie Alcan Ltée, [1990] R.J.Q. 655; 29 Q.A.C. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Charles-Boromée v. Lapointe, [1980] C.A. 568, refd to. [para. 16].
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. 16].
Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 16].
Malhab v. Métromédia C.M.R. Montréal Inc., [2003] R.J.Q. 1011 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].
Tremaine v. Robins (A.H.) Canada Inc., [1990] R.D.J. 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].
Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 18].
Carrier v. Québec (Ministre de la Santé et des Services sociaux), [2000] Q.J. No. 3048, consd. [para. 19].
Hamer v. Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu), [1998] Q.J. No. 1600, consd. [para. 21].
Noël v. Société d'énergie de la Baie James, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 207; 271 N.R. 304; 2001 SCC 39, consd. [paras. 24, 71].
Syndicat catholique des employés de magasins de Québec Inc. v. Compagnie Paquet Inc., [1959] S.C.R. 206, refd to. [para. 25].
Garon (Isidore) ltée v. Syndicat du bois ouvré de la région de Québec inc. (C.S.D.) et al. (2006), 344 N.R. 1; 2006 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 25].
Hémond, Grenier and Ouellet v. Syndicat des travailleurs(euses) de l'abbatoir de Princeville, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 962; 103 N.R. 193; 27 Q.A.C. 185, refd to. [para. 25].
Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 29].
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, consd. [paras. 29, 67].
Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, consd. [paras. 31, 67].
New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 33].
Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 33].
St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 33].
Allen et al. v. Alberta, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 128; 301 N.R. 174; 327 A.R. 1; 296 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 33].
Asbestos (J.M.) Inc. v. Lemieux, [1986] Q.J. No. 613 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Union international des employés professionnels et de bureau, locale 480 v. Albright & Wilson Amérique ltée (2000), 28 C.C.P.B. 306 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 36, 85].
Emerson Electric Canada ltée v. Foisy (2006), 50 C.C.P.B. 287; 2006 QCCA 12, refd to. [paras. 37, 85].
Hydro-Québec v. Corbeil (2005), 47 C.C.P.B. 200; 2005 QCCA 610, refd to. [paras. 38, 85].
Association provinciale des retraites d'Hydro-Québec v. Hydro-Québec, [2005] R.J.Q. 927; 2005 QCCA 304, refd to. [para. 38].
Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 7; 137 N.R. 7; 54 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].
Québec v. Paquet (Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel régional de Lanaudière et Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec, section locale 8), [2005] Q.J. No. 678; 2005 QCCA 109, refd to. [paras. 41, 94].
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162, refd to. [para. 42].
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 185; 321 N.R. 290; 2004 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 72].
Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141; 301 N.R. 201; 170 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 14, consd. [para. 79].
Lacroix v. Société Asbestos ltée (2004), 43 C.C.P.B. 267 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].
Vidéotron ltée v. Turcotte, [1988] Q.J. No. 2742 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
London Life Insurance Co. v. Dubreuil Brothers Employees Association (2000), 134 O.A.C. 382; 49 O.R.(3d) 766 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Elkview Coal Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 9346 et al. (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 244; 255 W.A.C. 244; 205 D.L.R.(4th) 80; 2001 BCCA 488, refd to. [para. 86].
Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 94].
Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 94].
Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 94].
Statutes Noticed:
Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 55, art. 462 [para. 98].
Labour Code, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27, sect. 1(f) [para. 30]; sect. 21 [para. 23, 26]; 100.1 [para. 30].
Supplemental Pension Plans Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. R-15.1, sect. 146.5 [paras. 43, 44].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Beaulieu, Jacqueline, Loi sur les régimes complémentaires de retraite: annotations et commentaires (1992) (1998 Looseleaf Supp., No. 6), vol. 1, pp. 245-1, 245-2 [para. 43].
Blouin, Rodrique and Morin, Fernand, Droit de l'arbitrage de grief (5th Ed. 2000), p. 149 [para. 39].
Crête, Raymonde, Les régimes complémentaires de retraite au Québec: une institution à découvrir en droit civil (1989), 49 R. du B. 177, p. 209 [para. 43].
Ferland, Denis, and Emery, Benoît, Précis de procédure civile du Québec (4th Ed. 2003), vol. 2, pp. 876, 877 [para. 17].
Gagnon, Robert P., Droit de travail du Québec (5th Ed. 2003), pp. 289 [para. 23]; 506 [para. 29]; 546 [para. 42]; 547 [paras. 40, 42].
Gagnon, Robert P., LeBel, Louis and Verge, Pierre, Droit du travail (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 710 [para. 42].
Lauzon, Yves, Le recours collectif (2001), pp. 5, 9 [para. 17].
Savard, Manon and Anouk, Violette, Les affaires Weber, O'Leary et Canadien Pacifique Ltée: que reste-t-il pour les cours de justice, in Développements récents en droit du travail (1997), vol. 49, pp. 72, 73 [para. 38].
Counsel:
Guy Du Pont, Nancy Boyle, Nick Rodrigo and Jean-Philippe Groleau, for the appellant/respondent Concordia University;
John T. Keenan and Harold C. Lehrer, for the respondent/appellant Concordia University Faculty Association;
Mario Évangéliste and Marie Pépin, for the respondent Richard Bisaillon;
No one appeared for the respondents Régie des rentes du Québec, John Hall and Howard Fink.
Solicitors of Record:
Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast, Montréal, Quebec; Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant/respondent Concordia University;
Keenan Lehrer, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent/appellant Concordia University Faculty Association;
Pépin et Roy, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent Richard Bisaillon.
This appeal was heard on December 14, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on May 18, 2006, and the following opinions were filed:
LeBel, J. (Deschamps, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 65;
Bastarache, J., dissenting (McLachlin, C.J.C., and Binnie, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 66 to 100.
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42
...2001 SCC 46, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell’Aniello, 2014 SCC 1, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 3; Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666. By Côté J. (dissenting in part) M. (K.) v. M. (H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147;......
-
Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc., (2011) 301 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...B.C.A.C. 276 ; 450 W.A.C. 276 ; 89 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1 ; 2009 BCCA 103 , refd to. [paras. 15, 73]. Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201 ; 2006 SCC 19 , refd to. [paras. 23, 67]. GreCon Dimter Inc. v. Normand (J.R.) Inc. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 401 ; 336 N.......
-
Marcotte v. Longueuil (City), 2009 SCC 43
...39 O.R. (2d) 365; Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; Gosselin v. Procureur général du Québec, [1986] SOQUIJ AZ-87021083; Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, 2007 SCC 10, [200......
-
Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al., [2011] N.R. TBEd. FE.029
...v. Fafard, [1986] J.Q. no 2823 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [1998] J.Q. no 1052 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45]. Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 S......
-
Symington v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al., 2007 NSCA 90
...House of Commons et al. v. Vaid et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; 333 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 68]. Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356; 1999 NSCA 159, leave to......
-
Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al., [2011] N.R. TBEd. FE.029
...v. Fafard, [1986] J.Q. no 2823 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [1998] J.Q. no 1052 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45]. Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 S......
-
Thorpe v. Honda Canada Inc., 2011 SKQB 72
...[2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, appld. [para. 27]. Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 19, refd to. [para. Hoffman et al. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al., [2004] 4 W.W.R. 632; 233 Sask.R. 112; 2003 SKQB ......
-
Canada v. Greenwood, 2021 FCA 186
...to follow the approach the Crown submits is mandated by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666 [Bisaillon],which requires the Court to first assess the individual circumstances of each plaintiff before deciding to e......
-
Class Proceedings In The Pension And Benefits Context
...35 The BC Act, s. 4(2); Alberta Act, s. 5(2); Manitoba Act 2005 BCSC 389 appeal dis'd 2006 BCCA 300 R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 (2nd supp.) [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666, 2006 SCC 19 Ruddell, supra R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 352 R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55 Frey v BCE Inc., 2006 SKQB 331 at para. 25 2004 BCCA 473 S.S. 1992, c......
-
Strategies To Avoid Or Mitigate Class Action Litigation - Quest For The Silver Bullet*
...N.R. 197 (note).; Ragoonanan v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 603 (S.C.). 8 See Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666, at paras. 17-18: "The class action is ... a procedural vehicle whose use neither modifies nor creates substantive rights. ... It cannot......
-
Supreme Court Of Canada To Consider Indirect Purchaser Rights In Price-Fixing Class Actions
...United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968); Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19 at para. See Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2009 BCCA 503 and Irving Paper Limited et al. v. Atofina Chemicals et al.,......
-
Jian Ghomeshi’s Lawsuit and the Current State of the Law on Civil Claims by Unionized Employees
...to resolve a dispute is not available through the collective agreement’s dispute resolution procedure: Disaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19, [2006] 1 SCR 666 at para. The Professor tried to argue that the collective agreement at issue was different than others previously addressed......
-
Introduction
...Chevron (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 130 at para. 50 (S.C.J.). The Supreme Court has recently also said this in Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19 at para. 17 [Bisaillon]. See also, to the same effect, Millgate Financial Corp. v. B.F Realty Holdings Ltd., [1998] O.J. No. 4537; . Anderso......
-
The Rise of Personal Health Information Class Actions
...that work is done” does not arise on the evidence before me. Here, there is evidence and thus “some 47 Bisaillon v Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19 at para 67, Bastarache J, dissenting. 48 Brown v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2013 ONSC 1284 at para 28 (Div Ct), aff’d 2014 ONCA CCAR ......
-
Introduction
...2007 SCC 35 [Muroff]. Dell, above note 25 at paras 105 and 224. McGill, above note 3 at 361. Ibid. Bisaillon v Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19. 26 27 28 29 CCAR 14-2.indb 1/8/2019 10:57:40 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s collectifs | Volume 14 • No 2 323 cannot serve as a basis ......
-
When Hackers Strike: The Liability of Reckless Record Holders for Intrusion Upon Seclusion
...otherwise have little incentive to apply to the courts on an individual basis to assert their rights” (Bisaillon v Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19 at para 16 [Bisaillon]). In his paper on the social mission of class actions, Shaun Finn suggests class actions serve a “vital civic function”......