Watson v. Bank of America Corp. et al., 2015 BCCA 362

• Judge: Donald, Saunders and Neilson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: August 19, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 362;(2015), 376 B.C.A.C. 153 (CA)

Watson v. Bk. of Am. ( 2015 ), 376 B.C.A.C. 153 (CA);

  646 W.A.C. 153

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.024

Mary Watson (appellant/plaintiff) v. Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41738)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. MasterCard International Incorporated (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41749)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Citigroup Inc. (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41750)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. BMO Financial Group (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41751)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. National Bank of Canada Inc. (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41752)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41754)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41755)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Capital One Bank (Canada Branch) (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41756)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Royal Bank of Canada (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41757)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41758)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Visa Canada Corporation (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc.,Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto-Dominion Bank (respondents/defendants)

(CA41760)

Mary Watson (respondent/plaintiff) v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank (appellant/defendant) and Bank of America Corporation, BMO Financial Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), Citigroup Inc., Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, MasterCard International Incorporated, National Bank of Canada Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, and Visa Canada Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(CA41761; 2015 BCCA 362)

Indexed As: Watson v. Bank of America Corp. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Saunders and Neilson, JJ.A.

August 19, 2015.

Summary:

Watson sought to represent two classes of merchants who accepted payment for goods and services by way of Visa or MasterCard credit cards. She applied to certify her action as a class proceeding. The claim alleged that the defendant banks, with Visa and MasterCard, were liable in damages for breach of ss. 45 and 61 of the Competition Act, and for the torts of conspiracy to injure, unlawful means conspiracy, and unlawful interference with economic relations. In the alternative, Watson sought restitutionary relief based on unjust enrichment, waiver of tort, and constructive trust.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 532, certified the claim for simple breach of s. 45 of the Act (i.e., a claim advanced under s. 36) and conspiracy to injure, as well as the claims in unjust enrichment and waiver of tort as adjuncts to the claim of conspiracy to injure. Watson appealed from the order striking the claim in unlawful means conspiracy, along with the related claims in unjust enrichment and waiver of tort based on contravention of the Act. The defendants appealed from the certification order. They contended that the pleadings did not adequately plead a s. 36 claim under the former or current s. 45, or conspiracy to injure under the common law and equity. The defendant Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec (Desjardins) contended that the common issues were not correctly certified in respect to it because its business model was distinct.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part. With respect to Watson's appeal, the claim for unlawful means conspiracy based on s. 45 of the Act, and claims in restitution and waiver of tort in relation to that tort, disclosed a reasonable claim. The Court concluded, at para. 58, that "it cannot be said that the scheme for civil redress in s. 36 of the Act is a replacement for an action in common law for unlawful means conspiracy. ... [A] claim for unlawful means conspiracy relying upon breach of the Competition Act, is a viable pleading. My conclusion extends to a claim in restitution and waiver of tort to the extent those claims derive from the tort of unlawful means conspiracy." On the other hand, to the extent the claim for restitution derived from simple breach of the Act, "the remedy provided by the Act in s. 36 is the sole route to recovery." (para. 59). The Court allowed the defendants' appeals to the extent of setting aside the certification order as it related to (current) s. 45. The Court remitted the certification application in respect to Desjardins to the Supreme Court for fresh determination.

Actions - Topic 1623

Cause of action - Torts - Tort v. statutory cause of action - See paragraphs 32 to 62.

Courts - Topic 2001.1

Jurisdiction - General principles - Remedies - General - See paragraphs 32 to 62.

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 paragraphs 8 to 10, 141 to 153, 184 to 189, 198 to 202.

Practice - Topic 210.5

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Procedure - Pre-certification matters (incl. particulars, production, pleadings, etc.) - See paragraphs 72 to 116, 124 to 140, 195 to 197.

Practice - Topic 210.6

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Limitation of actions - See paragraphs 117 to 123.

Practice - Topic 1463

Pleadings - Statement of claim - General - Requirement of disclosing cause of action - See paragraph 10.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - See paragraph 10.

Practice - Topic 2239.2

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Action prescribed or barred by limitation period - See paragraphs 117 to 123.

Restitution - Topic 64

Unjust enrichment - General - Juristic reason for enrichment - See paragraphs 175 to 180.

Statutes - Topic 1450

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Aids or methods to determine meaning - Legislative history - Reference to prior versions or amendments - See paragraphs 37 and 38.

Statutes - Topic 5846

Operation and effect - Enforcement - Restriction on remedies where method of enforcement specified in statute - See paragraphs 32 to 62.

Statutes - Topic 5948

Operation and effect - Effect on common law - Implied elimination of common law right or remedy - See paragraphs 47 to 62.

Torts - Topic 5084

Interference with economic relations - Conspiracy - Unlawful conduct or unlawful means conspiracy - See paragraphs 32 to 62.

Torts - Topic 5086

Interference with economic relations - Conspiracy - Conspiracy to injure - See paragraphs 124 to 140.

Torts - Topic 5098

Interference with economic relations - Conspiracy - Pleading - See paragraphs 72 to 116, 126 to 140.

Trade Regulation - Topic 501

Competition - General - History of legislation - See paragraphs 36 to 38.

Trade Regulation - Topic 506

Competition - General - Civil remedy (Competition Act, s. 36) - See paragraphs 32 to 62.

Trade Regulation - Topic 513

Competition - General - Limitation period - See paragraphs 117 to 123.

Words and Phrases

Common issues - The British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed the term "common issues" as it appeared in s. 4(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 - See paragraphs 141 to 153.

Cases Noticed:

Koubi v. Mazda Canada Inc. et al. (2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 172; 553 W.A.C. 172; 35 B.C.L.R.(5th) 74; 2012 BCCA 310, refd to. [para. 10].

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society et al. v. Alberta et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 261; 416 N.R. 198; 499 A.R. 345; 514 W.A.C. 345; 2011 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 10].

Wakelam v. Johnson & Johnson et al. (2014), 350 B.C.A.C. 70; 598 W.A.C. 70; 2014 BCCA 36, consd. [para. 23].

Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soins de Sante Inc. - see Wakelam v. Johnson & Johnson et al.

Westfair Foods Ltd. v. Lippens Inc. and 43887 Manitoba Ltd., [1990] 2 W.W.R. 42; 61 Man.R.(2d) 282; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 335 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477; 450 N.R. 201; 345 B.C.A.C. 1; 589 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 23].

Bram Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd. et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 177; 453 N.R. 273; 416 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1079 A.P.R. 1; 2014 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 23].

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 36].

Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70; 103 N.R. 321; 38 O.A.C. 81; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 36].

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada v. Eaton (T.) Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610, refd to. [para. 36].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Canada (Attorney General), [1931] A.C. 310 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 255, refd to. [para. 38].

Gagnon v. Foundation Maritime Ltd., [1961] 3 S.C.R. 435; 28 D.L.R.(2d) 174, refd to. [para. 40].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9, refd to. [para. 43].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 43].

Macaraeg v. E Care Contact Centers Ltd. (2008), 255 B.C.A.C. 126; 430 W.A.C. 126; 295 D.L.R.(4th) 358; 2008 BCCA 182, refd to. [para. 43].

Bryan's Transfer Ltd. v. Trail (City) et al. (2010), 296 B.C.A.C. 207; 503 W.A.C. 207; 2010 BCCA 531, refd to. [para. 47].

Grabber Industrial Products Central Ltd. et al. v. Stewart & Co. et al. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 122; 222 W.A.C. 122; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 303; 2000 BCCA 206, refd to. [para. 51].

Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. et al. (2007), 235 B.C.A.C. 126; 388 W.A.C. 126; 2007 BCCA 22, revd. in part (2008), 380 N.R. 166; 260 B.C.A.C. 198; 439 W.A.C. 198; 2008 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 51].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, appld. [para. 54].

Claiborne Industries Ltd. et al. v. National Bank of Canada et al. (1989), 34 O.A.C. 241; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 533 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Atwal et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 338; 2010 BCSC 338, affd. (2012), 315 B.C.A.C. 97; 535 W.A.C. 97; 2012 BCCA 12, refd to. [para. 57].

Stephens v. Gulf Oil Canada Ltd. (1975), 11 O.R.(2d) 129; 65 D.L.R.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. G48; 25 C.P.C.(4th) 107 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 36, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Armco Canada Ltd. (1976), 70 D.L.R.(3d) 287; 13 O.R.(2d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Commissioner of Competition v. Visa Canada Corp. and MasterCard International Corp., 2013 Comp. Trib. 10, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Larche (J.-P.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 762; 355 N.R. 48; 2006 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111, refd to. [para. 85].

Fairview Donut Inc. et al. v. TDL Group Corp. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1252; 2012 ONSC 1252, affd. [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 731; 2012 ONCA 867, leave to appeal refused [2013] 2 S.C.R. viii; 458 N.R. 394; 324 O.A.C. 398, refd to. [para. 118].

Garford Pty. Ltd. v. Dywidag Systems International Canada Ltd. et al. (2010), 375 F.T.R. 38; 2010 FC 996, affd. (2012), 428 N.R. 306; 2012 FCA 48, refd to. [para. 118].

No. 1 Collision Repair & Painting (1982) Ltd. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 288 (S.C.), affd. (2000), 141 B.C.A.C. 1; 231 W.A.C. 1; 2000 BCCA 463, refd to. [para. 118].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 90; 513 W.A.C. 90; 2011 BCCA 186, refd to. [para. 118].

Fuoco Estate v. Kamloops (City) et al. (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 212; 255 W.A.C. 212; 2001 BCCA 325, refd to. [para. 118].

Can-Dive Services Ltd. et al. v. Pacific Coast Energy Corp. et al. (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 157; 47 W.A.C. 157; 96 B.C.L.R.(2d) 156; 26 C.P.C.(3d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. (2010), 272 O.A.C. 214; 106 O.R.(3d) 661; 2010 ONCA 872, refd to. [para. 125].

Thompson v. Coquitlam (District) (1979), 15 B.C.L.R. 59 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 126].

Dell'Aniello v. Vivendi Canada Inc., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 3; 453 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 143].

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. 145].

Ernewein et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. et al. (2005), 218 B.C.A.C. 177; 359 W.A.C. 177; 46 B.C.L.R.(4th) 234; 2005 BCCA 540, refd to. [para. 146].

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. 147].

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 69, refd to. [para. 146].

Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp. et al. (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 51; 236 W.A.C. 51; 82 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 2000 BCCA 605, refd to. [para. 147].

Stanway v. Wyeth Canada Inc. et al. (2012), 323 B.C.A.C. 84; 550 W.A.C. 84; 2012 BCCA 260, refd to. [para. 147].

Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269; 411 N.R. 200; 300 B.C.A.C. 1; 509 W.A.C. 1; 274 O.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 176].

Wilson v. Fotsch (2010), 286 B.C.A.C. 276; 484 W.A.C. 276; 319 D.L.R.(4th) 26; 2010 BCCA 226, refd to. [para. 176].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 180].

Fischer et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd. et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 949; 452 N.R. 80; 312 O.A.C. 128; 2013 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 184].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, sect. 4(1) [para. 8].

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, sect. 36(1)(a), sect. 36(4)(a) [paras. 30, 69]; sect. 45(1) [paras. 27, 28, 70, 71]; sect. 61(1)(a) [para. 29]; sect. 62 [para. 31].

Counsel:

R. Mogerman, D. Jones and W. Branch, for M. Watson, appellant in CA41738;

M.A. Eizenga, for Bank of America Corporation;

D. Kent and J. Simpson, for MasterCard International Incorporated, appellant in CA41749;

M.D. Adlem, for Citigroup Inc., appellant in CA41750;

M. Jamal, for BMO Financial Group, appellant in CA41751;

W. McNamara and R. Sutton, for National Bank of Canada Inc., appellant in CA41752;

C. Chatelain, V. de l'Étoile and N. Hooge, for Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, appellant in CA41754;

B.W. Dixon, for Bank of Nova Scotia, appellant in CA41755;

H. Cochran, for Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), appellant in CA41756;

G. Cowper, Q.C., and A. Borrell, for Royal Bank of Canada, appellant in CA41757;

K.L. Kay and D. Royal, for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, appellant in CA41758;

R. Kwinter and J. Lysyk, for Visa Canada Corporation, appellant in CA41760;

F. Morrison and J. Yates, for Toronto-Dominion Bank, appellant in CA41761.

These appeals were heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 8, 9 and 10, 2014, before Donald, Saunders and Neilson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Saunders, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated August 19, 2015.