Tag for delivery

Case Name:
  Lacroix v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Nicole Lacroix, Rosie Ladouceur, David Guffie, Frank McCann
and Robert Braybrook
v.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Marc Rochon,
Claude Poirier-Defoy, Jim Millar, Karen Kinsley, Gerald
Norbraten, Jean-Guy Tanguay, David Metzak and Brian Knight
being the Trustees of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Pension Fund

[2005] S.C.C.A. No. 164
File No.: 30866

Supreme Court of Canada

Record created: April 7, 2005.
Record updated: August 25, 2005.

Appeal From:

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Status:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs (without reasons) August 25, 2005.

Catchwords:

Procedural law — Pre-trial procedure — Class proceedings — Certification of class — Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal erred in denying leave to appeal — Whether downsized workers can advance a claim in damages based on trust, fiduciary and statutory obligations owed to them — If so, whether they can employ the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 — How to properly determine whether disqualifying conflicts exist among class members on the proposed common issues at the certification stage in limited fund class actions — The proper interpretation of s. 5(2) of the Class Proceedings Act — Whether the motions judge erred in law in rejecting the Applicants' theory of the case and accepting the Respondents' at the certification stage — Whether the motions judge erred in law by finding that there were conflicts among class members on the par tial termination common issues and that they could not be addressed by creating sub-classes and in finding that they made the action unmanageable — Whether the motions judge erred in law by refusing to grant various amendments to the existing common issues.

Case Summary:
Upon consent, the Applicants' action for various breaches in
respect of surplus pension funds was certified as a national
class action. After substantial amendments to the statement of
claim, the Applicants moved to amend the certification order
accordingly. The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding
that the Applicants had failed to show that the class as defined
was rationally related to the proposed common issues on partial
termination, that real and present conflicts irresolvable by the
creation of sub-classes existed between class members, and that
the action as presented would be totally unmanageable due to the
many different groups, the obvious conflicts between the
sub-classes, and the two very distinct theories for relief. The
Divisional Court dismissed the Applicants' appeal and the Court
of Appeal denied leave to appeal.

Counsel:

W.J. Sammon (Barnes, Sammon), for the motion.

J. Brett Ledger (Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt), contra.

Chronology:

Procedural History:

QL UPDATE:  20050927
e/qlhbb