Winnipeg Dump Truck Seniority List Members v. Winnipeg (City), 2003 MBQB 273

• Judge: Clearwater, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: November 25, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2003 MBQB 273;(2003), 179 Man.R.(2d) 135 (QB)

Dump Truck Seniority List v. Winnipeg (2003), 179 Man.R.(2d) 135 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.004

44 Plaintiffs identified in Schedules A and B, collectively identified as The Winnipeg Dump Truck Seniority List Members (plaintiffs) v. The City of Winnipeg (defendant)

(CI 00-01-20723; 2003 MBQB 273)

Indexed As: Winnipeg Dump Truck Seniority List Members v. Winnipeg (City)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Clearwater, J.

November 25, 2003.

Summary:

From at least 1971 to May 2000, the city handed out snow removal and spring clean-up work to independent truckers on the basis of their position on a dump truck seniority list. After that date, the city's practice changed to putting all work up for tender. The 44 plaintiffs, all members of the Independent Dump Truck Association of Manitoba, brought an action for damages against the city for breach of contract. The city submitted that its past "practice" did not obtain contractual status. Alternatively, if a contract did exist, it was terminable upon reasonable notice, which the city gave to the truckers. The plaintiffs brought a motion under rule 12 to, inter alia, certify a class action on behalf of all truckers.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certifications - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - From at least 1971 to May 2000, the city handed out snow removal and spring clean-up work to independent truckers on the basis of their position on a dump truck seniority list - After that date, the city's practice changed to putting all work up for tender - The 44 plaintiffs, all members of the Independent Dump Truck Association of Manitoba, brought an action for damages against the city for breach of contract - The city submitted that its past "practice" did not obtain contractual status - Alternatively, if a contract did exist, it was terminable upon reasonable notice, which the city gave to the truckers - The plaintiffs brought a motion under rule 12 to certify a class action on behalf of all truckers - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the motion was to be determined on the basis of rule 12 as it existed in 2001 when the proceeding was commenced, not under the new rule 12 and Class Proceedings Act - The court dismissed the motion - A class action was not appropriate where, inter alia, there was a serious question as to whether success for one plaintiff necessarily meant success for all and, in any event, even if the city were liable to the plaintiffs, the determination of damages to each plaintiff would require production and discovery - See paragraphs 12 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 172 Man.R.(2d) 205 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Morison v. Manitoba Crop Insurance Corp. (2003), 176 Man.R.(2d) 91 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Neufeld v. Manitoba (2001), 161 Man.R.(2d) 18 (Q.B.), affd. (2002), 166 Man.R.(2d) 208; 278 W.A.C. 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Scott et al. v. St. Boniface General Hospital (2002), 165 Man.R.(2d) 181 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

JKC Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Woolworth Canada Inc. et al. (2001), 300 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party Portage-Lisgar Constituency Association v. Harms et al. (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 251; 304 W.A.C. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Fort Frances (Town) v. Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 171; 46 N.R. 108, refd to. [Schedule A].

Shaw Cablesystems (Manitoba) Ltd. v. Canadian Legion Memorial Housing Foundation (Manitoba) (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 85; 139 W.A.C. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Rapatax (1987) Inc. v. Cantax Corp. (1997), 196 A.R. 200; 141 W.A.C. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Carter v. Bell & Sons, [1936] 2 D.L.R. 438 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd. et al., [1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 (P.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. v. Canadian Flight Equipment Ltd.; Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. v. Murison, [1955] 2 All E.R. 722; [1955] 2 Q.B. 556, refd to. [Schedule A].

Toronto Type Foundry Ltd. v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter Inc. (1969), 2 O.R. 431 (H.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Paper Sales Corp. v. Miller Brothers Co. (1962) Ltd. (1975), 55 D.L.R.(3d) 492 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Hillis Oil and Sales Ltd. v. Wynn's Canada Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 57; 65 N.R. 23; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 171 A.P.R. 353; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 649, refd to. [Schedule A].

Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 200; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 491; 40 C.C.E.L. 1, refd to. [Schedule A].

Marbry et al. v. Avrecan International Inc., (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 266; 194 W.A.C. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 205 D.L.R.(4th) 19; 13 C.P.C.(5th) 1, refd to. [Schedule A].

Pearson v. Inco Ltd., [2002] O.T.C. 515 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Smith et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al., [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 716 (T.D.), refd to. [Scedule A].

Taylor v. Alberta Teachers' Association et al., [2002] A.R. Uned. 481 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Scott et al. v. St. Boniface General Hospital (2002), 165 Man.R.(2d) 181 (Q.B.), affd. (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 159; 304 W.A.C. 159 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Collette v. Great Pacific Management Co. et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 332 (S.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Statutes Noticed:

Interpretation Act, S.M. 2000, c. 26; C.C.S.M., c. I-80, sect. 46(1), sect. 50 [para. 12].

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 12.01, rule 12.02 [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Holmestead, George Smith, and Watson, Garry D., Ontario Civil Procedure (2001), rule 12, commentary, pp. 12-3 to 12-26 [Schedule A].

Watson and McGowan, Ontario Civil Practice (2001), rule 12, pp. 323 to 350 [Schedule A].

Counsel:

Anthony H. Dalmyn, for the plaintiffs;

William R. Stovel, for the defendant.

This motion was heard before Clearwater, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on November 25, 2003.