Drover et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., 2015 BCCA 132

• Judge: Frankel, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 132;(2015), 369 B.C.A.C. 231 (CA)

Drover v. BCE Inc. (2015), 369 B.C.A.C. 231 (CA);

    634 W.A.C. 231

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.060

Steve Drover, Shelley Frank, John Gillis, Michael Lucas, Mark Frey, Trudy Betthel, Bryan Pawlachuk, Nathalie Pawlachuk, D&S Homes Ltd., Jerry Karalash, Jennifer Evenson, Danielle Favreau, Jeff Ledding, Terese Hafichuk-Walkin, Jessica Cordingley, Alison Weinberger, Terry Parker, Carol Walker, Cindy Belton, Leigh Edmunds, Lauren Tomashich, Stan Pappas, Amanda Donald, Richard Skuce, Lant Lutterodt, John Doe I, Jane Doe I, John Doe Ltd. I, John Doe II, Jane Doe II, John Doe Ltd. II, John Doe III, Jane Doe III, John Doe Ltd. III, John Doe IV, Jane Doe IV, John Doe Ltd. IV, John Doe V, Jane Doe V, John Doe Ltd. V, John Doe VI, Jane Doe VI, John Doe Ltd. VI, John Doe VII, Jane Doe VII, John Doe Ltd. VII, John Doe VIII, Jane Doe VIII, John Doe Ltd. VIII, John Doe IX, Jane Doe IX, John Doe Ltd. IX, John Doe X, Jane Doe X, John Doe Ltd. X, John Doe XI, Jane Doe XI, John Doe Ltd. XI, John Doe XII, Jane Doe XII, John Doe Ltd. XII, John Doe XIII, Jane Doe XIII, John Doe Ltd. XIII, John Doe XIV, Jane Doe XIV, John Doe Ltd. XIV, John Doe XV, Jane Doe XV, John Doe Ltd. XV, John Doe XVI, Jane Doe XVI, John Doe Ltd. XVI, John Doe XVII, Jane Doe XVII, John Doe Ltd. XVII, John Doe XVIII, Jane Doe XVIII, John Doe Ltd. XVIII, John Doe XIX, Jane Doe XIX, John Doe Ltd. XIX, John Doe XX, Jane Doe XX, John Doe Ltd. XX, John Doe XXI, Jane Doe XXI, John Doe Ltd. XXI, John Doe XXII, Jane Doe XXII, John Doe Ltd. XXII, John Doe XXIII, John Doe XXIV, John Doe XXV, John Doe XXVI, and John Doe XXVII (appellants/plaintiffs) v. BCE Inc., Bell Canada, Bell Mobility Cellular Inc., Bell Mobility Inc., Aliant Telecom Inc., TELUS Corporation, TELUS Mobility, Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corporation, Rogers Communications Inc., Rogers Cantel Inc., Rogers Wireless Inc., Rogers AT&T Wireless, and MTS Inc. (respondents/defendants)

(CA040624)

Steve Drover, Shelley Frank, John Gillis, Michael Lucas, Mark Frey, Trudy Betthel, Bryan Pawlachuk, Nathalie Pawlachuk, D&S Homes Ltd., Jerry Karalash, Jennifer Evenson, Danielle Favreau, Jeff Ledding, Terese Hafichuk-Walkin, Jessica Cordingley, Alison Weinberger, Terry Parker, Carol Walker, Cindy Belton, Leigh Edmunds, Lauren Tomashich, Stan Pappas, Amanda Donald, Richard Skuce, Lant Lutterodt, John Doe I, Jane Doe I, John Doe Ltd. I, John Doe II, Jane Doe II, John Doe Ltd. II, John Doe III, Jane Doe III, John Doe Ltd. III, John Doe IV, Jane Doe IV, John Doe Ltd. IV, John Doe V, Jane Doe V, John Doe Ltd. V, John Doe VI, Jane Doe VI, John Doe Ltd. VI, John Doe VII, Jane Doe VII, John Doe Ltd. VII, John Doe VIII, Jane Doe VIII, John Doe Ltd. VIII, John Doe IX, Jane Doe IX, John Doe Ltd. IX, John Doe X, Jane Doe X, John Doe Ltd. X, John Doe XI, Jane Doe XI, John Doe Ltd. XI, John Doe XII, Jane Doe XII, John Doe Ltd. XII, John Doe XIII, Jane Doe XIII, John Doe Ltd. XIII, John Doe XIV, Jane Doe XIV, John Doe Ltd. XIV, John Doe XV, Jane Doe XV, John Doe Ltd. XV, John Doe XVI, Jane Doe XVI, John Doe Ltd. XVI, John Doe XVII, Jane Doe XVII, John Doe Ltd. XVII, John Doe XVIII, Jane Doe XVIII, John Doe Ltd. XVIII, John Doe XIX, Jane Doe XIX, John Doe Ltd. XIX, John Doe XX, Jane Doe XX, John Doe Ltd. XX, John Doe XXI, Jane Doe XXI, John Doe Ltd. XXI, John Doe XXII, Jane Doe XXII, John Doe Ltd. XXII, John Doe XXIII, John Doe XXIV, John Doe XXV, John Doe XXVI, and John Doe XXVII (appellants/plaintiffs) v. BCE Inc., Bell Canada, Bell Mobility Cellular Inc., Bell Mobility Inc., Bell Atlantic, Aliant Telecom Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA041132; 2015 BCCA 132)

Indexed As: Drover et al. v. BCE Inc. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Frankel, J.A.

March 25, 2015.

Summary:

This matter involves applications brought in two related appeals arising out of orders made in a putative class proceeding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia ([2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 50 and [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1341). One application sought an order reinstating an appeal statutorily dismissed as abandoned. The other application sought an order removing an appeal which had been statutorily placed on the inactive list due to the appellants taking no action beyond filing the notice of appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Frankel, J.A., dismissed the applications. It was not in the interests of justice to allow the appeals to move forward where the delays were due to a conscious decision to ignore the appeals with no regard for the court's processes.

Practice - Topic 8907

Appeals - Procedure - Restoring inactive appeal to general list - See paragraphs 80 to 89.

Practice - Topic 9205

Appeals - Abandonment of appeal - Reinstatement of abandoned appeal - See paragraphs 56 to 79.

Cases Noticed:

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2007), 312 Sask.R. 4; 2007 SKQB 328, refd to. [para. 10].

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2009), 334 Sask.R. 55; 2009 SKQB 165, refd to. [para. 10].

Collins et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2010), 352 Sask.R. 205; 2010 SKQB 74, refd to. [para. 11].

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2010), 350 Sask.R. 117; 487 W.A.C. 117; 2010 SKCA 30, refd to. [para. 12].

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., [2012] 3 W.W.R. 423; 377 Sask.R. 156; 528 W.A.C. 156; 2011 SKCA 136, leave to appeal refused [2012] 2 S.C.R. viii; 436 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Drover et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 50; 43 B.C.L.R.(5th) 146; 2013 BCSC 50, refd to. [para. 17].

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2013), 409 Sask.R. 266; 568 W.A.C. 266; 2013 SKCA 26, refd to. [para. 19].

Ileman v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1002; 28 B.L.R.(5th) 215; 2014 BCSC 1002, refd to. [para. 29].

Gillis et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2014), 348 N.S.R.(2d) 276; 1100 A.P.R. 276; 2014 NSSC 279, refd to. [para. 30].

Hafichuk-Walkin et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2014), 308 Man.R.(2d) 215; 2014 MBQB 175, refd to. [para. 32].

Rowan v. Dunwoody & Co. et al. (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 311; 214 W.A.C. 311; 1999 BCCA 755, refd to. [para. 52].

Murphy v. Wynne et al. (2008), 250 B.C.A.C. 249; 416 W.A.C. 249; 2008 BCCA 26, refd to. [para. 53].

Convoy Supply v. Drummond et al. (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 27; 128 W.A.C. 27; 6 C.P.C.(4th) 5 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Canada (Attorney General) v. No String Enterprises Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 195; application to reinstate denied [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 195; 2001 BCCA 671, application for review denied (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 318; 268 W.A.C. 318 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2002] 4 S.C.R. vi; 303 N.R. 398; 258 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 676 A.P.R. 202, refd to. [para. 54].

Booty v. Hutton (2009), 275 B.C.A.C. 139; 465 W.A.C. 139; 2009 BCCA 375, refd to. [para. 71].

Versluce Estate v. Knol (2008), 263 B.C.A.C. 65; 443 W.A.C. 65; 2008 YKCA 18, leave to appeal refused [2009] 1 S.C.R. x; 396 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 71].

Tejani v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, [2000] B.C.A.C. Uned. 55; 2000 BCCA 123, refd to. [para. 74].

Counsel:

E.F.A. Merchant, Q.C., for the appellants;

S.T.C. Warnett, for the respondents, BCE Inc., Bell Canada, Bell Mobility Cellular Inc., Bell Mobility Inc., and Aliant Telecom Inc.;

A.D. Borrell, for the respondents, TELUS Corporation, TELUS Mobility, and Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc.;

M. Shams, for the respondents, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corporation;

S.R. Schachter, Q.C., and G.B. Gomery, Q.C., for the respondents, Rogers Communications Inc., Rogers Cantel Inc., Rogers Wireless Inc., and Rogers AT&T Wireless;

J.R. Shewfelt, for the respondent, MTS Inc.

These applications were heard in chambers at Vancouver, B.C., on February 13, 2015, by Frankel, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on March 25, 2015.