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 – Identical, similar or related questions of law or fact – Colour of right – Status of representative – Whether proposed class action can be authorized where injury to members of group is statistically demonstrated but it is unlikely that direct evidence of individual injury to each member can be produced – Whether presumption of fact based on statistics is method of proof that can support class action – Balance to be struck between fundamental right to be represented by attorney of choice and principles applicable to ascribing status of representative at stage of authorizing class action.

Through a class action against the respondents, the applicants sought compensation for the injury alleged to have been suffered by the members of the group on whose behalf they were acting as a result of the allegedly faulty calibration of the gasoline pumps under the respondents’ control. They argued that, because of that defect, the members of the group had paid for more gasoline than they had actually received. The Superior Court dismissed the applicants’ motion for authorization to institute the proposed class action on the ground that the action did not meet the requirements of art. 1003(a), (b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge had correctly found that the facts alleged did not justify the conclusions sought, that the recourses of the members did not raise identical, similar or related questions of fact and that the applicant Automobile Protection Association was not in a position to act as representative.