MacQueen et al. v. Nova Scotia et al., (2013) 338 N.S.R.(2d) 133 (CA)

JudgeOland, Farrar and Bryson, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
Case DateDecember 04, 2013
JurisdictionNova Scotia
Citations(2013), 338 N.S.R.(2d) 133 (CA);2013 NSCA 143

MacQueen v. N.S. (2013), 338 N.S.R.(2d) 133 (CA);

    1071 A.P.R. 133

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.008

The Attorney General of Canada, representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (appellant) v. Neila Catherine MacQueen, Joseph M. Petitpas, Ann Marie Ross, Kathleen Iris Crawford, Sydney Steel Corporation, a body corporate, and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia (respondents)

(CA 392560)

Sydney Steel Corporation, a body corporate, and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia (appellants) v. Neila Catherine MacQueen, Joseph M. Petitpas, Ann Marie Ross, Kathleen Iris Crawford, and The Attorney General of Canada representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (respondents)

(CA 393200; 2013 NSCA 143)

Indexed As: MacQueen et al. v. Nova Scotia et al.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Oland, Farrar and Bryson, JJ.A.

December 4, 2013.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the operation of a steel plant and coke ovens. Only Nova Scotia and Canada remained as defendants. The plaintiffs obtained an order certifying the claim as a class proceeding and determining the class boundaries (see 311 N.S.R.(2d) 354; 985 A.P.R. 354). The Attorney General of Nova Scotia obtained leave to appeal (see 324 N.S.R.(2d) 102; 1029 A.P.R. 102) and appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order.

Editor's note: Prior proceedings in this matter were indexed as MacQueen et al. v. Ispat Sidbec Inc. et al. and are reported at 246 N.S.R.(2d) 213; 780 A.P.R. 213, 253 N.S.R.(2d) 188; 807 A.P.R. 188, 274 N.S.R.(2d) 101; 874 A.P.R. 101; 319 N.S.R.(2d) 215; 1010 A.P.R. 215; and 379 N.R. 399.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - A class action certification judge rejected the defendants' assertion that if the proposed class boundaries were rejected, the judge should reject the certification motion and allow the plaintiffs to propose a further amendment - To proceed expeditiously, the boundaries had to be determined - It was appropriate to make adjustments within reasonable limits - However, at least in the circumstances, that authority should only be exercised to set smaller, rather than larger, class areas - On appeal, one of the defendants asserted that the judge's interpretation of s. 15 of the Class Proceedings Act, which allowed the judge to re-draw the boundaries on his own motion, was an error of law - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that, as the defendant was not contesting the boundaries as defined by the judge, the issue was moot - This was not to be construed as accepting or endorsing the judge's reasoning - See paragraph 26.

Equity - Topic 3611

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Crown - The plaintiffs sued Canada and Nova Scotia for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operations - The defendants appealed an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding, asserting that the breach of fiduciary duty claim did not raise a common issue - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal agreed - The crux of the claim was that the defendants owed a fiduciary duty because they possessed information about the contaminants and were the primary source for information about potential health implications - The claim did not fit within the limited scope of fiduciary duty that governments owed citizens - The issue had no reasonable chance of success and, therefore, would not substantially advance the litigation - Moreover, it could not be resolved at a common issues trial due to the individual nature of the inquiries involved - See paragraphs 155 to 162.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - [See Equity - Topic 3611 ].

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The defendants attacked a class action certification judge's determination that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded their causes of action - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted that the judge had not discussed in detail each alleged cause of action - Moreover, he appeared to have wrongly considered evidence when assessing the causes of action's viability - The court was to assume that the facts pleaded were true and decide if a cause of action was made out - See paragraphs 39 to 41.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operation - The defendants appealed an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding, asserting that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action for strict liability - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that, in effect, the statement of claim alleged that what was really the ordinary operation of a steel mill and coke ovens constituted "non-natural" use within the Rylands v. Fletcher rule - A bare allegation of "non-natural" was insufficient, particularly as the other facts pleaded suggested otherwise - The plaintiffs had not pleaded that the mill and ovens were non-natural in the context of the time, place and manner that they were operated - Nor did they say that the defendants' industrial uses of the land constituted a "special use bringing with it increased danger to others" - However, they did plead that the "release of Contaminants [created] an abnormally dangerous and pervasive risk ..." - Accordingly, certification should not be refused based solely on that aspect of the pleadings - See paragraphs 62 to 68.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operations - The defendants appealed an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding, asserting that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action for strict liability - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal agreed - The law did not recognize strict liability for engaging in dangerous activities, per se - The requirement of escape under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule was inconsistent with the intentional release of something which caused damage - Despite the repeated use of "escape", the supportive language described contaminants as the ordinary and regular by-product of the defendants' industrial activities - Those allegations were inconsistent with an unintentional release of the contaminants - See paragraphs 69 to 83.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operations - The defendants appealed an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding, asserting that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action for trespass - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal agreed - The plaintiffs had not alleged that the contaminants were directly placed on their lands - Directness was a required element of trespass - See paragraphs 84 to 93.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operations - The defendants appealed an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding, asserting that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action for battery and negligent battery - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal agreed - The pleadings made it plain that exposure to the contaminants was an indirect consequence of the defendants' industrial activities - Trespass to the person required direct interference - See paragraphs 94 to 100.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operations - The defendants appealed an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding, asserting that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action for nuisance - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiffs had pleaded that the defendants had "substantially and unreasonably interfered" with the use and enjoyment of their lands - They set out in some detail the defendants' industrial activities of which they complained and the allegedly deleterious effects which resulted from those activities - To demand a greater description of "unreasonable interference" would encroach on the evidentiary basis by which the plaintiffs might prove their case - However, the common issues certified for nuisance (with one exception) were not common to all of the class members and should not have been certified - Rather, they relied upon findings of fact which had to be made for each claimant - See paragraphs 101 to 109 and 125 to 148.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operations - The plaintiffs obtained an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal concluded that the certification judge erred in certifying the causes of action with the exception of nuisance, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty - The only potential common issue was the source of the contaminants - It was through that lens that the court had to determine whether class proceedings was the preferable procedure - Determination of the contaminants' source would not significantly advance the claims of all members - A class action was not the preferable procedure - See paragraphs 165 to 186.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs sued for redress for alleged contamination of their persons and homes caused by the defendants' industrial operations - The defendants appealed an order certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding, asserting that the negligence claim did not raise a common issue - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal agreed - The duty and standard of care were moving targets depending on when the class member owned the property and the alleged exposure occurred - The issues were stated in the most general of terms and would involve individual findings of fact for each member - They would break down into individual proceedings - They were not a substantial ingredient of each individual claim and would be dependent on individual determinations of the duty and standard to apply to each member's property - The determination of those issues would not advance the litigation - See paragraphs 149 to 154.

Practice - Topic 209.9

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Appeals - The defendants asserted that a class action certification judge erred in determining that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded their causes of action - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that whether a pleading disclosed a cause of action was a question of law reviewable on the correctness standard - The Class Proceedings Act was procedural - It did not relax the standard that pleadings had to disclose a cause of action on their face - Pleadings were adequate provided that it was not "plain and obvious" that the cause of action would fail - The plaintiffs rightly asserted that pleadings were to be read generously - However, the statement of claim had already been amended numerous times and the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to plead correctly - Further, the generosity of interpretation did not overcome pleaded facts inconsistent with the underlying cause of action and could not supply factual omissions - Failing to plead all material facts would usually result in the cause of action being struck - See paragraphs 43 to 55.

Practice - Topic 209.9

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Appeals - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "Whether a common issue exists and whether a class action is the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the dispute are questions of mixed fact and law. These questions are subject to a standard of review of palpable and overriding error unless the certification judge made some extricable error in principle with respect to the characterization of the standard or its application in which case it is an error of law reviewable on the standard of correctness ..." - See paragraph 111.

Practice - Topic 209.9

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Appeals - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "The standard of review of the certification judge's conclusion that a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the claim is the same as review of common issues [i.e., palpable and overriding error]. However, ... in light of the errors found on the part of the certification judge in certifying the causes of action and the common issues, it is necessary for us to look at the issue of preferability afresh without deference to the certification judge." - See paragraph 164.

Practice - Topic 1463

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Requirement of disclosing cause of action - [See third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Practice - Topic 209.3 and first Practice- Topic 209.9 ].

Practice - Topic 1466

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Omission of essential facts - Effect of - [See first Practice - Topic 209.9 ].

Practice - Topic 2202

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Standard of review of pleadings - [See first Practice - Topic 209.9 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Practice - Topic 209.3 and first Practice - Topic 209.9 ].

Practice - Topic 2230.3

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to plead material facts - [See first Practice - Topic 209.9 ].

Practice - Topic 8800.1

Appeals - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of mixed law and fact by a trial judge - [See second Practice - Topic 209.9 ].

Torts - Topic 1704

Nuisance - Practice - Pleading - [See seventh Practice - Topic 209.3 ].

Torts - Topic 2004

Strict liability - General - Application of rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - [See fourth Practice - Topic 209.3 ].

Torts - Topic 2096

Strict liability - Dangerous things or activities - What constitutes unnatural use - [See third Practice - Topic 209.3 ].

Torts - Topic 3002

Trespass - Trespass to land - What constitutes - [See fifth Torts - Topic 209.3 ].

Torts - Topic 3008

Trespass - Trespass to land - By deposit of materials - [See fifth Torts - Topic 209.3 ].

Torts - Topic 3191

Trespass - Assault and battery - Battery - What constitutes - [See sixth Torts - Topic 209.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 29].

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. 30].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 41].

Morrison Estate v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (2011), 306 N.S.R.(2d) 124; 968 A.P.R. 124; 2011 NSCA 68, refd to. [para. 42].

Ring v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 297 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 86; 918 A.P.R. 86; 2010 NLCA 20, refd to. [para. 42].

Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2012), 293 O.A.C. 248; 2012 ONCA 444, refd to. [para. 42].

Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Eastwood Chrysler Dodge Ltd. et al. (2010), 262 Man.R.(2d) 1; 507 W.A.C. 1; 2010 MBCA 75, refd to. [para. 43].

Campbell et al. v. Flexwatt Corp. et al. (1997), 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.), refd to. [para. 43].

Towers Ltd. v. Quinton's Cleaners Ltd. et al. (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 70; 466 W.A.C. 70; 2009 MBCA 81, refd to. [para. 45].

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society et al. v. Alberta et al. (2009), 469 A.R. 270; 470 W.A.C. 270; 2009 ABCA 403, revd. (2011), 416 N.R. 198; 499 A.R. 345; 514 W.A.C. 345; 2011 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 46].

Windsor v. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (2006), 402 A.R. 162; 2006 ABQB 348, affd. (2007), 417 A.R. 200; 410 W.A.C. 200; 2007 ABCA 294, refd to. [para. 49].

Anderson et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 315 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314; 981 A.P.R. 314; 2011 NLCA 82, refd to. [para. 51].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 53].

Pearson v. Inco Ltd. et al., [2002] O.T.C. 515 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

Anderson et al. v. Wilson et al. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 69 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 258 N.R. 194; 138 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

3021386 Nova Scotia Ltd. v. Barrington District (Municipality) et al., [2010] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 101; 2010 NSSC 173, refd to. [para. 55].

Rylands v. Fletcher (1866), L.R. 1 Ex. 265, affd. (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330, refd to. [para. 57].

Smith v. Inco Ltd., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 3790; 2010 ONSC 3790, revd. (2011), 284 O.A.C. 13; 2011 ONCA 628, leave to appeal denied (2012), 435 N.R. 392; 300 O.A.C. 401 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [2004] 2 A.C. 1; 315 N.R. 123; [2004] 1 All E.R. 589 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 61].

Tock and Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1181; 104 N.R. 241; 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 257 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 63].

Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263, refd to. [para. 68].

Boehner (Doug) Trucking & Excavating Ltd. v. United Gulf Developments Ltd. et al. (2007), 258 N.S.R.(2d) 41; 824 A.P.R. 41; 2007 NSCA 92, refd to. [para. 86].

Whebby (Eric) Ltd. v. Boehner (Doug) Trucking & Excavating Ltd. - see Boehner (Doug) Trucking & Excavating Ltd. v. United Gulf Developments Ltd. et al.

Southport Corp. v. Esso Petroleum Co., [1954] 2 Q.B. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1; 1992 CarswellBC 155, refd to. [para. 94].

Scalera v. Lloyd's of London, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 551; 253 N.R. 1; 135 B.C.A.C. 161; 221 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 99].

Hunter et al. v. Canary Wharf Ltd.; Hunter et al. v. London Docklands Development Corp., [1997] A.C. 655; 215 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 103].

Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia (2012), 293 O.A.C. 204; 2012 ONCA 443, refd to. [para. 123].

Williams v. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada et., [2000] O.T.C. 751; 51 O.R.(3d) 54 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 126].

Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation) (2013), 441 N.R. 342; 301 O.A.C. 281; 2013 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 139].

Paron et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environmental Protection) et al. (2006), 402 A.R. 85; 2006 ABQB 375, refd to. [para. 144].

Rumley et al. v. British Columbia, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184; 275 N.R. 342; 157 B.C.A.C. 1; 256 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 153].

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 438 N.R. 1; 300 O.A.C. 202; 2012 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 158].

Carom et al. v. Bre-X Mineral Ltd. et al. (1999), 98 O.T.C. 1 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1999), 46 O.R.(3d) 315 (Div. Ct.), revd. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 55 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 283 N.R. 399; 157 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 166].

Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank (2007), 224 O.A.C. 71; 2007 ONCA 334, leave to appeal refused (2007), 383 N.R. 381; 248 O.A.C. 396 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 176].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 201; 345 B.C.A.C. 1; 589 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 177].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, S.N.S. 2007, c. 28, sect. 7 [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Finn, Shaun, Summoning Leviathan: A Critical Analysis of Class Action Theory and the Ethics of Group Litigation (2007), 4 Can. Class Action Rev. 119, Issue 1 [para. 32].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), p. 21 [para. 84].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (5th Ed. 2012), pp. 56 [para. 95]; 110 [para. 85]; 646 to 651 [para. 61]; 652 [paras. 61, 70]; 653 [paras. 61, 70, 74]; 757 [para. 103].

Linden, Allen M., and Feldthusen, Bruce, Canadian Tort Law (8th Ed. 2006), pp. 43, 44 [para. 84].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Class Actions (1982), vol. 1 [para. 28].

Pun, Gregory S., and Hall, Margaret I., The Law of Nuisance in Canada (2010), pp. 113 [para. 60]; 131 [para. 75]; 132 [paras. 75, 78].

Counsel:

Paul Evraire, Q.C., Angela Green and Melissa Chan, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Agnes MacNeil and Alison Campbell, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Sydney Steel Corporation;

Raymond F. Wagner Q.C., C. Scott Ritchie, Q.C., Michael Robb and Michael Dull for Neila Catherine MacQueen, Joseph M. Petitpas, Ann Marie Ross and Kathleen Iris Crawford.

This appeal was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on March 19-21, 2013, by Oland, Farrar and Bryson, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the court was released December 4, 2013.

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • A Statutory Solution to Ontario’s Environmental Class Action Problem: Section 99(2) of the Environmental Protection Act
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • And (judicially Economical) Justice for All: The Case for Class Proceedings as the Preferable Procedure in Mass Claims for Charter Damages
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • The Role of Certification in Charter Class Actions to Assert the Rights of Persons in Prison
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • Introduction
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Joyce v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General),
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 27 d4 Janeiro d4 2022
    ...Our Court of Appeal summarized the principles related to “common issue” analysis in MacQueen v. Sydney Steel Corp., 2013 NSCA 143:[35] 123      The legal principles relating to common issues were summarized in Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2012 ......
  • Bruno v Samson Cree Nation,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 24 d3 Novembro d3 2021
    ...of whether there is a cause of action pleaded within the meaning of s. 5(1)(a) of the CPA”); MacQueen v. Sydney Steel Corp., 2013 NSCA 143, ¶¶ 39 & 41; 369 D.L.R. 4th 1, 21 (“The certification judge … appears to have taken into account evidence  when ......
  • Anderson et al. v. Manitoba et al., (2015) 326 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 4 d4 Junho d4 2015
    ...2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 83]. MacQueen et al. v. Nova Scotia et al. (2013), 338 N.S.R.(2d) 133; 1071 A.P.R. 133; 2013 NSCA 143, refd to. [para. Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. ......
  • REED v. DOBSON,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • 30 d4 Setembro d4 2021
    ...Inc., 2006 NSSC 208 at paras 33-35, 246 NSR (2d) 213 [MacQueen], over-ruled but not on this point, Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143, 369 DLR (4th) 1. Invoking MacQueen, the individual defendants submit that the pleading is inadequate because it fails to particularize the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Environmental Law 2022
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 5 d1 Dezembro d1 2022
    ...2014, confirmed that class action regimes are not often appropriate to remedy environmental harms: Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143 and Windsor v Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd, 2014 ABCA 108. Although environmental causes of action may seem to involve common issues among c......
  • BLG Environmental Law Update – 2013-2014
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 25 d2 Novembro d2 2014
    ...of Appeal agreed that the case was novel. (d) NSCA Decertifies Sydney Tar Ponds Class Action In Canada (Attorney General) v. MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned a class proceeding certification in the Sydney Tar Ponds litigation, which arose after the closure......
  • Environmental Law 2020
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 17 d2 Novembro d2 2020
    ...2014, confirmed that class action regimes are not often appropriate to remedy environmental harms: Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143 and Windsor v Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd, 2014 ABCA 108. Although environmental causes of action may seem to involve common issues among c......
  • Macqueen Class Action Struck Out Re Sydney Tar Ponds
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 27 d1 Janeiro d1 2014
    ...and they may have considerable difficulty finding legal counsel willing to do so on a contingency basis. MacQueen v. Ispat Sidbec Inc., 2013 NSCA 143, reversing 2011 NSSC 484, 985 A.P.R. 354, 311 N.S.R. (2d) 354, 25 C.P.C. (7th) 318 The content of this article is intended to provide a gener......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 books & journal articles
  • Introduction
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • Assessing Fees When Class Actions Follow Government Action
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • Access to Justice Versus Freedom of Contract: A Comparative Analysis of Canada and Us Enforcement of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • And (judicially Economical) Justice for All: The Case for Class Proceedings as the Preferable Procedure in Mass Claims for Charter Damages
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • 1 d5 Março d5 2019
    ...note 118 at para 69. 202 Ring v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 NLCA 20. 203 Ibid at para 93. 204 Canada (Attorney General) v MacQueen, 2013 NSCA 143. 205 Ibid at para 151. 206 Kinzel & Kohn, above note 171 at CCAR 14-2.indb 458 1/8/2019 10:57:46 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienne des r ecour s co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT