The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50842
plaintiffs to "forum-shop" and seek jurisdictions like Manitoba and Saskatchewan where there are no-costs regimes. With eight provinces enacting legislation — Ontario, Brit- ish Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador — there's plenty to choose from and there may also be a bonus, since the dockets in jurisdictions with no-costs regimes don't have the crowded dockets of hot-bed centres like Toronto and Mon- treal. "Jurisdiction shopping is always appropriate, it's been go- ing on through legal history back to the Admiralty Court when plaintiffs claimed the incident they were complaining of had happened on the wharves so the court had jurisdiction," says Merchant adding the Danier Leather costs award is also going to be a factor in deciding where to launch actions. A pending Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada Post Corp. v. Lépine may also have an impact. The court is to decide whether a settlement reached in one jurisdiction can be enforced in another. The matter revolves around a CD sold through Canada Post that promised free internet service for life. When the company behind it couldn't deliver after a couple of months, it switched gears and told customers they'd have to pay $9.95 a month. Michel Lépine launched a class action in Quebec on behalf of 45,000 others demanding com- pensation of $250 each and free internet service for life, or $23 a month. An Ontario court settled a similar action, but the Quebec courts refused to recognize it, saying it was confus- ing. If the SCC upholds the Ontario settlement as enforceable in Quebec, it may mean that plaintiffs will be encouraged to shop for a jurisdiction that has both a cost-friendly disposi- tion and a relatively clear docket to ensure the matter moves along crisply. But jurisdiction shopping isn't a panacea and as Gowlings' Ruby notes, forums where there are no-costs regimes are shift- ing their thinking around certification. He's encouraged by a recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in Hoffman v. Monsanto Canada Inc., which takes a more skeptical view of certification and recognizes the burden defendants face. In that decision handed down last May, the court said while the intent of the legislation in no-costs regimes like Saskatchewan was to remove adverse hurdles to plaintiffs, "its removal can, however, serve as an incentive to the unscrupulous to commence less- than-genuine actions for the primary purpose of pressuring the defendant into a settlement." Leave to appeal to the SCC was denied last December. The court went on to note defendants are often induced to settle, not for fear of being found culpable of wrongdo- ing, but by the huge costs involved. "There is an obvious need to guard against such mischief in the interests of furthering, not distorting, the purposes of the act, and of maintaining respect for, and confidence in, the class action regime," says the Hoffman ruling. "I think that says it beautifully," says Ruby. Hill Dewar Vincent LITIGATION COUNSEL Hill Dewar Vincent carries on a legal practice that concentrates on providing litigation, arbitration and dispute resolution services to local, national and international clients. Dave Hill Sherri Walsh Derek M. Olson Robert A. Dewar, Q.C. Faron J. Trippier Madeline Low Stephen F. Vincent Karen R. Wittman Mandy Klein Counsel: The Honourable Peter S. Morse, Q.C. Suite 2670 - 360 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3Z3 Telephone (204) 943-6740, Facsimile (204) 943-3934 E-mail: lawyers@hillco.mb.ca Untitled-2 1 www. C ANADIAN mag.com APRIL 2008 49 12/6/07 10:48:19 AM