Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure - Class actions - Appeals - Arbitration - Whether the proper construction of s. 4 of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, and of s. 15 of the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55, does not require a stay of the action at this stage of the proceedings - Whether, in any event, s. 3 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, renders any arbitration agreement in the Appellant’s agreements with the Respondent inoperative.

The Appellant’s renewed contract with the Respondent for cellular services contained an arbitration clause. The Appellant commenced a class action against the Respondent, claiming breach of contract and deceptive and unconscionable practices contrary to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2. Under s. 15(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55, a party to an arbitration agreement can apply for a stay of legal proceedings so that an arbitration may proceed. Under s. 15(2), a court is required to stay the proceedings unless the arbitration agreement is “void, inoperative or incapable of being performed”. In MacKinnon v. National Money Mart Co. 2004 BCCA 473, it was determined that the Court should consider under s. 4 of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, whether a class action proceeding is the preferred method of resolving a dispute between parties bound by an arbitration clause. In cases where it is, the arbitration agreement was to be considered “inoperable”. The question became whether this rule had been overruled by the decisions in Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801, and Rogers Wireless Inc. v. Muroff, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 921.