Wright et al. v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Swinton, Harvison Young and Lederer, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Citation: (2015), 336 O.A.C. 21 (DC),2015 ONSC 2220
• Date: 17 March 2015

Wright v. UPS (2015), 336 O.A.C. 21 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.037

Ryan Wright and Julia Zislin (plaintiffs/respondents) v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. (defendant/appellant)

(415/11; 2015 ONSC 2220)

Indexed As: Wright et al. v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Swinton, Harvison Young and Lederer, JJ.

May 19, 2015.

Summary:

The defendant, United Parcel Services Canada Ltd. (UPS), sought leave to appeal an order of Horkins, J., certifying the action as a class proceeding. See [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 5044.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Wilton-Siegel, J., in a decision reported at (2012), 295 O.A.C. 385, granted the application respecting common issue 2(c), namely whether unsolicited "brokerage services" had been provided under s. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. UPS had failed to establish any error by Horkins, J. There was a basis in fact to certify a common issue of whether, in light of the standard form contracts and UPS's systemic practice, UPS had provided unsolicited services under s. 13(2) of the CPA.

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 defendant (UPS) was granted leave to appeal an order certifying the action as a class proceeding respecting common issue 2(c), namely whether "unsolicited" "brokerage services" had been provided, thereby violating s. 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal - UPS had failed to establish any error by the motions judge - There was a basis in fact to certify a common issue of whether, in light of the standard form contracts and UPS's systemic practice, UPS had provided unsolicited services under s. 13 of the CPA.

Practice - Topic 209.9

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Appeals (incl. leave to appeal) - [See Practice - Topic 209.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477; 450 N.R. 201; 2013 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 21].

Cassano et al. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (2007), 230 O.A.C. 224; 87 O.R.(3d) 401; 2007 ONCA 781, refd to. [para. 21].

Dell'Aniello v. Vivendi Canada Inc., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 3; 453 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 21].

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, refd to. [para. 23].

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. 23].

Blackman v. Fedex Trade Networks Transport & Brokerage (Canada) Inc. et al., [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 201; 2009 BCSC 201, dist. [para. 27].

MacFarlane v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 740; 2009 BCSC 740, affd. (2010), 290 B.C.A.C. 45; 491 W.A.C. 45; 2010 BCCA 171, dist. [para. 27].

Leblanc v. United Parcel Service du Canada ltée, 2012 QCCS 4619, refd to. [para. 27].

Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 531; 412 N.R. 195; 301 B.C.A.C. 1; 510 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Consumer Protection Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, sect. 13(2) [para. 14]; sect. 13(3) [para. 15]; sect. 13(9) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Michael A. Eizenga, C. Scott Ritchie, Q.C., and Daniel Bach, for the plaintiffs/respondents;

John A. Campion, Robin Roddey and Sebastien Kwidzinski, for the defendant/appellant.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 17, 2015, by Swinton, Harvison Young and Lederer, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. Swinton, J., delivered the following decision for the court on May 19, 2015.