Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al., 2010 FC 498

JudgeMainville, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateApril 16, 2010
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2010 FC 498;(2010), 389 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

Rhodes v. Cie Amway Can. (2010), 389 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.022

Cheryl Rhodes and Kerry Murphy (plaintiffs) v. Compagnie Amway Canada and Amway Global (defendants)

(T-1754-09; 2010 FC 498)

Indexed As: Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al.

Federal Court

Mainville, J.

May 5, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim in the context of a proposed class action. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action since the matter should have gone to arbitration. The defendants also proposed to move for dismissal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction for constitutional reasons. The plaintiffs moved for directions. Specifically, they requested that the defendants' motion to dismiss based on arbitration to be heard and decided at the same time as their not yet filed motion for certification of their action as a class proceeding.

The Federal Court ruled that the defendants' motion to dismiss based on arbitration be heard before the plaintiffs' not yet filed motion for certification.

Practice - Topic 210.2

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Procedure - Multiple or competing actions - The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim in the Federal Court in the context of a proposed class action - The defendants moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action since the matter should have gone to arbitration - The plaintiffs had not yet filed their motion for certification of their action as a class action - They requested that the defendants' motion to dismiss be heard at the same time as their proposed motion for certification - The Federal Court ruled that the defendants' motion should be heard first - After discussing the pragmatic and principled approaches to class action management where the court's jurisdiction was questioned, the court held that the order of adjudication of motions in class action proceedings, including motions challenging the court's jurisdiction, was to be determined on a case by case basis - In the present case, the court failed to see why the defendants should be impeded from having their motion to dismiss heard when the plaintiffs had not yet filed their motion for certification - See paragraphs 1 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc. (2010), 259 O.A.C. 108; 64 B.L.R.(4th) 199; 2010 ONCA 29, refd to. [para. 7].

MacKinnon v. National Money Mart Co. et al. (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 276; 450 W.A.C. 276; 304 D.L.R.(4th) 331; 2009 BCCA 103, refd to. [para. 8].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 8].

Muroff v. Rogers Wireless Inc., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 921; 365 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 8].

Galarneau v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 306 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 39, refd to. [para. 9].

Merchant Law Group et al. v. Canada Revenue Agency et al. (2008), 338 F.T.R. 181; 2008 FC 1371, refd to. [para. 9].

Société Asbestos Limitée v. Lacroix, 2004 CanLII 21635 (Qué. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Campbell et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 233; 2008 FC 353, refd to. [para. 13].

2038724 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corp. et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 311 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 391 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 14].

Counsel:

André Lespérance and Careen Hannouche, for the plaintiffs;

Robert Torralbo and Claude Marseille, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Trudel & Johnston, Montreal, Quebec, and Lauzon Bélanger Inc., Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiffs;

Blake Cassels & Graydon, LLP, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendants.

This motion was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on April 16, 2010, by Mainville, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Montreal, Quebec, on May 5, 2010.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Early disposition or prejudicial attrition? An analysis of bill 161 and pre-certification dispositive motions in class actions
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 18-1, November 2022
    • November 1, 2022
    ...2010 Bellefontaine v Purdue Frederick Inc 2010 NSCA 58 NS Jurisdiction Before Certiication 2010 Rhodes v Compagnie Amway Canada 2010 FC 498 QC Dismiss Before Certiication 2010 Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v British Columbia (Agriculture and Lands) L a R e v u e C a n a dienne des......
  • Murphy c. Amway Canada Corporation,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • February 14, 2013
    ...921; Desputeaux v. Éditions Chouette (1987) inc., 2003 SCC 17 , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 178 .REFERRED TO:Rhodes v. Compagnie Amway Canada, 2010 FC 498, 389 F.T.R. 1; Fowler v. 1752476 Ontario Ltd., 2010 ONSC 779 (CanLII); Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd., 2000 CanLII 16892, 137 O.......
  • Murphy v. Amway Canada et al., (2014) 461 N.R. 301 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • May 13, 2014
    ...reducing the claim remained open throughout - See paragraphs 35 to 38. Cases Noticed: Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al. (2010), 389 F.T.R. 1; 2010 FC 498 , refd to. [para. 7]. Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al. (2010), 370 F.T.R. 242 ; 2010 FC 724 , refd to. [par......
  • Tl'azt'en Nation v. Sam, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 112 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 12, 2013
    ...92 de la Loi sur les relations de travail dans la fonction publique , LRC 1985, c P-35, (voir Lindsay c Canada (Procureur général) , 2010 CF 389). Par conséquent, il a conclu qu'il était compétent pour trancher la question de savoir si M. Sam avait été injustement congédié. [23] Enfin, l'ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
  • Murphy c. Amway Canada Corporation,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • February 14, 2013
    ...921; Desputeaux v. Éditions Chouette (1987) inc., 2003 SCC 17 , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 178 .REFERRED TO:Rhodes v. Compagnie Amway Canada, 2010 FC 498, 389 F.T.R. 1; Fowler v. 1752476 Ontario Ltd., 2010 ONSC 779 (CanLII); Huras v. Primerica Financial Services Ltd., 2000 CanLII 16892, 137 O.......
  • Murphy v. Amway Canada et al., (2014) 461 N.R. 301 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • May 13, 2014
    ...reducing the claim remained open throughout - See paragraphs 35 to 38. Cases Noticed: Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al. (2010), 389 F.T.R. 1; 2010 FC 498 , refd to. [para. 7]. Rhodes et al. v. Compagnie Amway Canada et al. (2010), 370 F.T.R. 242 ; 2010 FC 724 , refd to. [par......
  • Tl'azt'en Nation v. Sam, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 112 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 12, 2013
    ...92 de la Loi sur les relations de travail dans la fonction publique , LRC 1985, c P-35, (voir Lindsay c Canada (Procureur général) , 2010 CF 389). Par conséquent, il a conclu qu'il était compétent pour trancher la question de savoir si M. Sam avait été injustement congédié. [23] Enfin, l'ar......
  • Dewey et al. v. Kruger Inc. et al., 2016 NLTD(G) 113
    • Canada
    • Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
    • June 17, 2016
    ...heard by the Court, when the Plaintiffs have not yet submitted its application for certification. ( Rhodes v. Cie Amway Canada , 2010 FC 498 at paragraph 25) [20] CBPP has put forward authority to argue that applications challenging the very jurisdiction of the court to hear a claim, includ......
1 books & journal articles

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