Turner v. Bell Mobility Inc. et al.,

• Judge: Rooke
• Neutral Citation: 2015 ABQB 169
• Date: 17 November 2014
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Turner v. Bell Mobility Inc. (2015), 610 A.R. 345 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.127

Christy Turner (plaintiff/respondent) v. Bell Mobility Inc. and Rogers Communications Partnership (defendants/applicants) and Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership; MTS Inc.; Saskatchewan Telecommunications; Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corporation; Tele-Mobile Company; Telus Communications Company; Telus Communications Inc.; and Telus Corporation (defendants/non-participating)

(1403 13288 [see footnote 1]; 2015 ABQB 169)

Indexed As: Turner v. Bell Mobility Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B.

March 10, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, represented by the Merchant Law Group (MLG), commenced a class action against the defendant telecommunication companies, alleging that they had unlawfully charged cell phone system access fees. MLG brought eight similar class proceedings against the defendants in other Canadian jurisdictions, including Saskatchewan. Two of the defendants applied to strike or stay the Alberta action, arguing that it was an abuse of process because the Saskatchewan action had already been certified as a multijurisdictional class action on essentially the same subject matter and with the same putative class members.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application, finding that the Alberta action involved a different national class than the Saskatchewan action. However, the court granted a temporary stay which would permit Albertans who wished to be part of the Saskatchewan action to opt-in, thus setting the class definition in the Alberta action to those who had not opted-in to the Saskatchewan action. In this way, the class members in the two actions would not overlap.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - [See Practice - Topic 210.2 ].

Practice - Topic 208.2

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Members of class - National class - [See Practice - Topic 210.2 ].

Practice - Topic 209.8

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Notice to members of class (incl. opt-out process) - [See Practice - Topic 210.2 ].

Practice - Topic 209.22

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Members of class - Non-resident class members (incl. jurisdiction) - [See Practice - Topic 210.2 ].

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 commenced a class action against the defendant telecommunication companies, alleging that they had unlawfully charged cell phone system access fees - Plaintiffs' counsel brought eight similar class proceedings against the defendants in other Canadian jurisdictions, including Saskatchewan - Two of the defendants applied to strike or stay the Alberta action, arguing that it was an abuse of process because the Saskatchewan action had already been certified as a multijurisdictional class action on essentially the same subject matter and with the same putative class members - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - A multiplicity of proceedings was justified by the fact that Alberta was an opt-out jurisdiction and all members of the Alberta class were entitled to be included in the class without taking any action, but non-Saskatchewan residents had to act positively by opting-in to the Saskatchewan action - Class members in Alberta should have the same rights of easy access to justice as those in Saskatchewan - There might also be causes of action available in Alberta that were not raised or available in Saskatchewan - The court granted a temporary stay to permit Albertans who wished to be part of the Saskatchewan action to opt-in, thus setting the class definition in the Alberta action to those who had not opted-in to the Saskatchewan action - In this way, the class members in the two actions would not overlap - Further, the Alberta action could only deal with causes of action permitted by the Saskatchewan action, unless there were other causes of action, unique to Alberta law, that were not expressly or explicitly considered in the Saskatchewan action.

Practice - Topic 5277.1

Trials - General - Stay of proceedings - Abuse of process - [See Practice - Topic 210.2 ].

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of process - [See Practice - Topic 210.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2008), 329 Sask.R. 42; 2008 SKQB 79, affd. (2011), 377 Sask.R. 156; 528 W.A.C. 156; 2011 SKCA 136, leave to appeal refused (2012), 436 N.R. 397; 405 Sask.R. 320; 563 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 1, 32].

Frey v. Bell Mobility Inc. - see Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al.

Microcell Communications Inc. v. Frey - see Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al.

Duong et al. v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 2534; 2011 ONSC 2534, refd to. [para. 17].

Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 220 Man.R.(2d) 224; 407 W.A.C. 224; 2007 MBCA 123, refd to. [para. 19].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta (1994), 152 A.R. 1; 18 Alta. L.R.(3d) 286 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Blais v. Freson Market Ltd., [1999] A.R. Uned. 237; 1999 ABQB 507, refd to. [para. 20].

Parsons et al. v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al., [2000] O.T.C. 968; 49 O.R.(3d) 281; 97 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1082 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

McSherry v. Zimmer GmbH et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 4113; 2012 ONSC 4113, refd to. [para. 24].

Silver et al. v. IMAX Corp. et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1667; 2013 ONSC 1667, leave to appeal refused [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 6751; 2013 ONSC 6751, refd to. [para. 26].

Jeffery et al. v. Nortel Networks Corp. et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. I32; 68 B.C.L.R.(4th) 317; 2007 BCSC 69, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 7].

Fischer et al. v. Delgratia Mining Corp. et al., [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 866; 1999 CanLII 3220 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 7].

Field (K.) Resources Ltd. et al. v. Bell Canada International Inc. et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 846; 142 A.C.W.S.(3d) 380 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 7].

Nunes v. Air Transat A.T. Inc. et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 587; 20 C.P.C.(6th) 93 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 7].

1176560 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (2004), 184 O.A.C. 298; 70 O.R.(3d) 182 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 7].

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. 31].

Brooks v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 329 Sask.R. 176; 2009 SKQB 54, refd to. [para. 33].

Brooks v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2009 SKQB 66, refd to. [para. 33].

Pardy et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2003), 229 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 242; 679 A.P.R. 242; 2003 NFSCTD 109, refd to. [para. 34].

Wilson v. Servier Canada Inc. et al., [2000] O.T.C. 884; 50 O.R.(3d) 219 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Nantais v. Telectronics Proprietary (Canada) Ltd. (1995), 25 O.R.(3d) 331 (Gen. Div.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 129 D.L.R.(4th) 110 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Collins et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2010), 352 Sask.R. 205; 2010 SKQB 74, disagreed with [para. 36].

Chatfield v. Bell Mobility Inc. et al., [2013] Sask.R. Uned. 77; 2013 SKQB 293, refd to. [para. 36].

Drover et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1341; 54 B.C.L.R.(5th) 153; 2013 BCSC 1341, disagreed with [para. 43].

Ileman v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1002; 2014 BCSC 1002, refd to. [para. 43].

Gillis et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2014), 348 N.S.R.(2d) 276; 1100 A.P.R. 276; 2014 NSSC 279, agreed with [para. 46].

Hafichuk-Walkin et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2014), 308 Man.R.(2d) 215; 2014 MBQB 175, disagreed with [para. 46].

Lamb et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2003), 242 Sask.R. 80; 2003 SKQB 442, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 10].

472900 B.C. Ltd. v. Thrifty Canada Ltd. (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 233; 190 W.A.C. 233; 168 D.L.R.(4th) 602 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters - See Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Cominco Ltd. et al.

Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Cominco Ltd. et al. (2009), 384 N.R. 351; 266 B.C.A.C. 32; 449 W.A.C. 32; 2009 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 56].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda - see Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd. et al.

Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd. et al. (2012), 429 N.R. 217; 291 O.A.C. 201; 2012 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 58].

Kaynes v. BP plc (2014), 324 O.A.C. 207; 2014 ONCA 580, refd to. [para. 59].

Englund et al. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. et al. (2007), 299 Sask.R. 298; 408 W.A.C. 298; 2007 SKCA 62, disagreed with [para. 66].

Ring et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 272 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 348; 830 A.P.R. 348; 2007 NLTD 213, refd to. [para. 72].

Bear et al. v. Merck Frosst Canada & Co. (2011), 385 Sask.R. 76; 536 W.A.C. 76; 2011 SKCA 152, refd to. [para. 75].

Yee v. Aurelian Resources Inc., [2007] A.R. Uned. 623; 2007 ABQB 368, refd to. [para. 82].

St. Piere v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd., [1936] 1 K.B. 32, refd to. [para. 83].

Whitehead v. Taber (1983), 46 A.R. 14 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 83].

Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Empoyees (1984), 53 A.R. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Westec Aerospace Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. (1999), 122 B.C.A.C. 18; 200 W.A.C. 18; 1999 BCCA 243, affd. (2001), 255 N.R. 200; 143 B.C.A.C. 319; 235 W.A.C. 319; 2001 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 84].

Turner v. Bell Mobility Inc. et al. (2014), 581 A.R. 1; 2014 ABQB 36, refd to. [para. 86, footnote 12].

Turon et al. v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 4343; 2011 ONSC 4343, refd to. [para. 90].

Meads v. Meads (2012), 543 A.R. 215; 2012 ABQB 571, refd to. [para. 100].

Onischuk v. Alberta et al. (2013), 555 A.R. 330; 2013 ABQB 89, refd to. [para. 100].

Stout v. Track (2013), 574 A.R. 59; 95 Alta. L.R.(5th) 32; 2013 ABQB 751, refd to. [para. 100].

Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2010), 498 A.R. 43; 2010 ABQB 538, affd. (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 100].

A.N.B. v. Alberta (Minister of Human Services) et al. (2013), 557 A.R. 364; 2013 ABQB 97, refd to. [para. 100].

Toronto (City) 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. 100].

German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2; 39 Alta. L.R.(2d) 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik et al. (2011), 414 N.R. 332; 303 B.C.A.C. 1; 512 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 100].

644036 Alberta Ltd. v. Morbank Financial Inc. et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 820; 2014 ABQB 681, refd to. [para. 100].

Counsel:

E.F.A. Merchant, Q.C., and C.R. Churko, for the plaintiff;

K. Podrebarac and A. Melamud, for the defendant, Bell Mobility Inc.;

D.J. McDonald, Q.C., and A.F. Sunter, for the defendant, Rogers Communications Limited Partnership.

This application was heard on November 17, 2014, before Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for decision on March 10, 2015.