Anatomy of 4(1)(b)

Of 114 contested certifications in British Columbia (68 certified), 17 found no identifiable class:

• Asp, 2014 BCSC 1124 (Blok J.), ¶46-53 (no rational connection; relief sought not beneficial to all)
• Benning, 2006 BCSC 1292 (Gropper J.) (‘same claim’ test)
• Beveridge, 2014 BCSC 2145 (Greyell J.), ¶65-69 (“reasonable disbursements” was merits based and not objective)
• Chartrand, 2008 BCSC 1781 (Martinson J.), ¶67 (‘no complaints’; and ‘no reason to complain’ test)
• Clark, 2014 BCSC 1891 (Verhoeven J.), ¶145 (‘no claims’; ‘no same claims’ test)
• Glover, 2006 BCSC 1071 (Ehrcke J.), ¶37-47 (criteria depended on determining merits of whether class member suffered a permanent disability, why their pension was denied, and whether pension was undervalued)
• Hartt, 2013 BCSC 264 (Affleck J.), ¶72-74 (would include those with “no meritorious complaint”; electing class members could not conclude that they had a “legitimate complaint”; individual circumstances would have to be “scrutinized”; class was “open ended”)
• Ileman, 2014 BCSC 1002 (Weatherill J.), ¶125-26: (must determine whether purchase of cellular services was primarily for “personal, family or household purposes”)
• Jiang, 2016 BCSC 368 (Bowden J.), ¶93-117 (following Ileman, "consumer" not objective criteria)
• Kwicksutaineuk, 2012 BCCA 193 (Garson, Hinkson, D. Smith JJ. A.) (class members not juridical persons)
• Ladas, 2014 BCSC 1821 (Adair J.), ¶127-68 (non-residents have no claim under BC legislation; “purchased” criteria not rationally related to “user” privacy breach; evidence did not show 2 people meeting the proposed criteria)
• Lee, 2012 BCSC 1484 (Savage J.), ¶34-44 (no evidence of 2 or more persons with a “complaint that they intend to pursue”)
• Monaco, 2015 BCSC 2421 (Abrioux J.), ¶151 (includes those with no cause of action; criteria vague)
• Roberts, 2006 BCSC 1649 (Ross J.), ¶19-38 (merits test — P has not proved that all class members were impacted by coal dust contamination)
• Samos, 2001 BCSC 1790 (Bauman J.) (insufficient “commonality” – different misrepresentations at different times causing different reactions; presence of an individual issue (reliance); conflict between class members in proving wrongdoing and in quantifying relief; no evidence of other class members making allegations that P made) / 2003 BCCA 87 (Mackenzie JJ.A.) / 2004 BCSC 484 (Bauman J.) (exclusion of adversely impacted shareholders)
• Sun-Rype, 2013 SCC 58 (Rothstein J.… > Karatsanis J.…), ¶52-78 (impossibility of selfidentification)
• Unlu, 2015 BCSC 1453 (Adair J.), ¶80 (includes those without a claim).

Historically, courts devoted only a few paragraphs to s. 4(1)(b). Either:

• D accepted or did not oppose the proposal;
• courts found an identifiable class even where not certified;
• where certification was rejected on other grounds, courts chose not to address 4(1)(b); or
• the BCCA reversed certification for other reasons (without interfering with BCSC’s approval).

Lately, the D bar has been more vexing with creative, dubious, and novel tests that seek to convert discretionary preferability factors into mandatory certification requirements.

• PO’s as requirement: Sun-Rype, 2010 BCSC 922 (Rice J.), ¶82-94fsome basis
  • JE: insufficient “commonality” (X backdoor predominance requirement)
    • “same claim” test
      • Benning, 2006 BCSC 1292 (Gropper J.), ¶80-81
    • diversity / individual differences / alternate causal factors (A: subclasses or ii)
      • Ernewein, 2004 BCSC 1462 (Taylor J.), ¶41-44; Fakhri, 2003 BCSC 1717 (Gerow J.), ¶55; Reid, 2003 BCSC 1632 (Gerow J.), ¶42; Roberts, 2006 BCSC 1649 (Ross J.), ¶30 on; Scott, 2001 BCSC 1299 (Martinson J.), ¶61-73; White, 2004 BCSC 99 (Cullen J.), ¶41-54
  • ATJ: no interest or demand from class (X ambiguity of “interest in” vs. “interested in”)
    • Hoy, 2001 BCSC 1343 (Kirkpatrick J.), ¶23-28; Vasquez, 2006 BCSC 1399 (Kelleher J.), ¶52-54; Epp, 2006 BCSC 659 (Allan J.), ¶40-43; Chartrand, 2008 BCSC 1781 (Martinson J.), ¶67
  • BM: no air of reality to wrongdoing
    • Chartrand, 2008 BCSC 1781 (Martinson J.), ¶60-68; Samos, 2001 BCSC 1790 (Bauman J.), ¶170-74
• ignoratio elenchi
  • mischaracterize P’s claim
    • Knight, 2005 BCSC 172, ¶42
  • refer to those not included in P’s proposal
• conflicts between class members
  • Rumley (1998), 65 BCLR (3d) 382 (Kirkpatrick J.), ¶52; Ruddell, 2005 BCSC 1504 (Holmes J.), ¶77-86; Samos, 2001 BCSC 1790 (Bauman J.)

What follows is an organizational anatomy of the class definition analysis in British Columbia and some Case-Notes. I have derived these elements from reported reasons following 114 contested certification hearings.

I. LAW

A. purpose

• Bywater, ¶10; Dutton, ¶38 — “entitled to relief” and “potential claim”
  • X invites merits assessment

B. “identifiable”

• ability to self-identify
  • Bartolome, 2008 BCSC 132 (Brown J.), ¶38: (“…a minimum of effort…”); Pro-Sys, 2010 BCSC 285 (Myers J.), ¶167-176: (“relatively elaborate factual investigation”); Sun-Rype, 2010 BCSC 922 (Rice J.), ¶66, 69-81 (“impossible…to self identify”)
     
• unknown identity vs. impossible to identify
  • 4(b): “…identifiable class of 2…”;
  • 7(d): “…identity of each…not known”;

C. soc: rr (oi / ui); m

• Hollick, ¶17
• soc: non-residents
  • 6(2): must be divided into subclasses
    • Harrington, 2000 BCCA 605 (Esson, Rowles, Finch, Ryan, and Huddart JJ. A.); Chalmers, 2010 BCCA 560, ¶37-44 (Butler J.) (Harrington affirmed); Hoy, 2001 BCSC 1343 (Kirkpatrick J.), ¶32-38; Knight, 2005 BCSC 172 (Satanove J.) (global class); Ladas, 2014 BCSC 1821 (Adair J.), ¶133, 142
• oi to D means ‘some have no claim’ (offside s. 5(7) merits prohibition)
  • settlements or releases: Pro-Sys (Infineon), 2008 BCSC 575 (Masuhara J.), ¶129
  • limitation periods
    • Knight, 2006 BCCA 235 (Hall, Huddart, Smith JJ.A.), ¶35-36, 42; Smith, 2010 BCSC 120 (Gray J.), ¶53-57
  • evidentiary
    • ‘P proved harm began and ended at these dates only’
      • MacKinnon, 2007 BCSC 348 (Brown J.), ¶32
    • harm not widespread
      • Roberts, 2006 BCSC 1649 (Ross J.)

II. PROPOSAL

A. sources

• statement of claim
• notice of motion for certification
• brief of law
• oral argument / counsel submissions
• counsel correspondence

B. precedent

• Tracy, 2006 BCSC 1018 (Brown J.), ¶23-25

III. NUMBERS

A. law

• affirmation of “…2 or more”: s. 4(1)(b)
  • Bouchanskaia, 2003 BCSC 1306 (Gray J.), ¶82 (”…size…may affect…preferable procedure…. For…4(1)(b)…two or more…:); Koubi, 2010 BCSC 650 (Dardi J.), ¶73.
• D beef – ‘no harm done to anyone — not even to the P.’ Trend to challenge P’s evidence of harm or wrongdoing
  • Roberts, 2006 BCSC 1649 (Ross J.), ¶24-29
  • X invites an impermissible merits inquiry.

B. sources

• D’s records
• government records
• contacts with P’s counsel
• other

IV. OPTIONS

A. approve w/o modification

• Court rejects D’s objections outright

B. approve w/ modification

• P accepts D’s objections and amends proposal

C. defer problems to case conference

• Cooper (1999), 68 BCLR (3d) 293 (Tysoe J.), ¶16-17

D. reject w/o leave to amend/“salvage”

• Kwicksutaineuk, 2012