Vivendi Canada Inc. (appellant) v. Michel Dell`Aniello

Vivendi Canada Inc. (appellant) v. Michel Dell'Aniello (respondent) and Alliance of
Manufacturers & Exporters of Canada, carrying on business as Canadian Manufacturers &
Exporters, and Canadian Chamber of Commerce (interveners) Official English Translation
(34800; 2014 SCC 1; 2014 CSC 1)
Indexed As: Dell'Aniello v. Vivendi Canada Inc.
Supreme Court of Canada
LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
January 16, 2014.
Summary:
Vivendi Canada Inc. made a unilateral amendment to the health insurance plan of which
it was the sponsor for its retired employees and their surviving spouses. Dell'Aniello moved for
authorization to institute a class action, on behalf of all the beneficiaries of the plan, in order to
challenge the validity of the amendment.
The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported at 2010 QCCS 3416, dismissed the
motion on the basis that the claims of all the members of the proposed group did not raise
questions that were "identical, similar or related", having regard to each member's particular
situation. Dell'Aniello appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 2012 QCCA 384, allowed the
appeal. The Superior Court erred in its assessment with respect to the criterion set out in art.
1003(1) of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure. There was a question common to the claims of
all the members of the group. Vivendi appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Practice - Topic 209
Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing Class or representative actions - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada
discussed the role of a judge hearing an application for authorization to institute a class
action in Quebec - The court stated that "all the judge must do is decide whether the
applicant has shown that the four criteria of art. 1003 [Quebec Code of Civil Procedure]
are met. If the answer is yes, the class action will be authorized. The Superior Court will
then consider the merits of the case. In considering whether the criteria of art. 1003 are
met at the authorization stage, the judge is therefore deciding a procedural question. The
judge must not deal with the merits of the case, as they are to be considered only after the
motion for authorization is granted" - See paragraphs 37 to 39 - "The judge does not have
to ask whether a class action is the most appropriate procedural vehicle." - See paragraph
67.
Practice - Topic 209
Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing Class or representative actions - General principles - Article 1003(a) of the Quebec Code
of Civil Procedure provided that "[t]he court authorizes the bringing of the class action
and ascribes the status of representative to the member it designates if of opinion that: (a)
the recourses of the members raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact" At issue was the meaning of "identical, similar or related questions of law or fact" - The
Supreme Court of Canada considered the applicability of Western Canadian Shopping
Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al. (SCC 2001) and Rumley et al. v. British Columbia
(SCC 2001) to Quebec civil law - It could be seen from the Quebec courts' interpretation
of art. 1003(a) that their approach to the commonality requirement had often been
broader and more flexible than the one taken in the common law provinces - The Quebec
courts proposed a flexible approach to the common interest that had to exist among the
group's members - As a result, even where circumstances varied from one group member
to another, a class action could be authorized if some of the questions were common - To
meet the commonality requirement of art. 1003(a), the applicant had to show that an
aspect of the case lent itself to a collective decision and that once a decision had been
reached on that aspect, the parties would have resolved a not insignificant portion of the
dispute - All that was needed was that there be an identical, related or similar question of
law or fact, unless that question would play only an insignificant role in the outcome of
the class action - It was not necessary that the question made a complete resolution of the
case possible - The common questions did not have to lead to common answers - At the
authorization stage, the approach taken to the commonality requirement in Quebec civil
procedure was a flexible one - As a result, the criterion of art. 1003(a) might be met even
if the common questions raised by the class action required nuanced answers for the
various members of the group - See paragraphs 40 to 59.
Practice - Topic 209.3
Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action
appropriate) - Vivendi Canada Inc. made a unilateral amendment to the health insurance
plan of which it was the sponsor for its retired employees and their surviving spouses Dell'Aniello moved for authorization to institute a class action, on behalf of all the
beneficiaries of the plan, in order to challenge the validity of the amendment - The
motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the claims of all the members of the
proposed group did not raise questions that were "identical, similar or related", having
regard to each member's particular situation - Dell'Aniello appealed - The Quebec Court
of Appeal allowed the appeal - Vivendi appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada
dismissed the appeal - The motions judge ruled on the merits of the case by determining
that the rights to the insurance benefits of certain members of the group had not
crystallized - The motion judge performed a function of screening motions - This was a
procedural stage that did not involve consideration of the questions on the merits - The
motion judge had to inquire into whether the four criteria of art. 1003 of the Quebec Code
of Civil Procedure were met - The questions could be decided on the merits only by the
trial judge, after authorization to institute the class action had been granted - See
paragraphs 70 and 71.
Practice - Topic 209.3
Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing -
Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action
appropriate) - Vivendi Canada Inc. made a unilateral amendment to the health insurance
plan of which it was the sponsor for its retired employees and their surviving spouses Dell'Aniello moved for authorization to institute a class action, on behalf of all the
beneficiaries of the plan, in order to challenge the validity of the amendment - The
motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the claims of all the members of the
proposed group did not raise questions that were "identical, similar or related", having
regard to each member's particular situation - Dell'Aniello appealed - The Quebec Court
of Appeal allowed the appeal - The motion judge erred in his assessment with respect to
the criterion set out in art. 1003(1) of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure - There was a
question common to the claims of all the members of the group - Vivendi appealed - The
Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - The main question raised in the motion
for authorization to institute a class action was whether the amendments made to the plan
were valid or lawful - Those amendments had the effect of reducing certain benefits
promised to the retirees and surviving spouses - Since the claims of all the group's
members were based on the plan, the question of the validity or the legality of the
amendments arose for all the members - The answer to this question could serve to
advance the resolution of all the claims - Hence, there was a common question - See
paragraphs 74 to 79.
Cases Noticed:
Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51;
153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 1].
Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272
N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, appld. [para. 1].
Bouchard v. Agropur Coopérative, [2006] R.J.Q. 2349; 2006 QCCA 1342, refd to. [para.
34].
Union des consommateurs v. Bell Canada, [2012] R.J.Q. 1243; 2012 QCCA 1287, refd
to. [para. 34].
Harmegnies v. Toyota Canada Inc., 2008 QCCA 380, refd to. [para. 34].
Union des consommateurs v. Bell Canada, 2010 QCCA 351, refd to. [para. 34].
Infineon Technologies AG et al. v. Option consommateurs et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 355;
2013 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 37].
Marcotte et al. v. Longueuil (Ville), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 65; 394 N.R. 1; 2009 SCC 43, refd
to. [para. 37].
Collectif de défense des droits de la Montérégie (CDDM) v. Centre hospitalier régional
du Suroît du Centre de santé et de services sociaux du Suroît, 2011 QCCA 826,
refd to. [para. 42].
Rumley et al. v. British Columbia, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184; 275 N.R. 342; 157 B.C.A.C. 1;
256 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 69, consd. [para. 44].
Frey et al. v. BCE Inc. et al. (2011), 377 Sask.R. 156; 528 W.A.C. 156; 2011 SKCA 136,
refd to. [para. 47].
Comité d'environnement de La Baie Inc. v. Société d'électrolyse et de chimie Alcan Ltée,
[1990] R.J.Q. 655; 29 Q.A.C. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes (2011), 131 S. Ct. 2541, refd to. [para. 57].
Riendeau v. Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson, 2000 CanLII 9262 (Que. C.A.), refd to.
[para. 58].
Lallier v. Volkswagen Canada Inc., [2007] R.J.Q. 1490; 2007 QCCA 920, refd to. [para.
58].
Del Guidice v. Honda Canada Inc., [2007] R.J.Q. 1496; 2007 QCCA 922, refd to. [para.
58].
Kelly v. Communauté des Soeurs de la Charité de Québec, [1995] J.Q. no 3377, refd to.
[para. 58].
Brown v. B2B Trust, 2012 QCCA 900, refd to. [para. 68].
General Motors du Canada ltée v. Billette, [2010] R.J.Q. 66; 2009 QCCA 2476, refd to.
[para. 68].
Apple Canada Inc. v. St-Germain, 2010 QCCA 1376, refd to. [para. 68].
Statutes Noticed:
Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, art. 1003(1) [para. 33].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Barreau du Québec, Développements récents en recours collectifs (2007), p. 335 [para.
68].
Branch, Ward K., Class Actions in Canada (1996) (2013 Looseleaf Update), vol. 1, p. 4103 [para. 76].
David, Eric McDevitt, La règle de proportionnalité de l'article 4.2 C.p.c. en matière de
recours collectif - Premières interprétations jurisprudentielles, in Barreau du
Québec, Développements récents en recours collectifs (2007), p. 335 [para. 68].
Lafond, Pierre-Claude, Le recours collectif comme voie d'accès ུ la justice pour les
consommateurs (1996), p. 408 [para. 57].
Lafond, Pierre-Claude, Le recours collectif, le
le du juge et sa conception de la
justice: impact et évolution (2006), pp. 153, 154 [para. 68].
Counsel:
Sylvain Lussier, Michel Benoit and Julien Ranger-Musiol, for the appellant;
Claude Tardif and Catherine Massé-Lacoste, for the respondent;
Michael A. Feder and Pierre-Jérôme Bouchard, for the interveners.
Solicitors of Record:
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;
Rivest, Schmidt, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;
McCarthy Tétrault, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the interveners.
This appeal was heard on April 24, 2013, by LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell,
Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following
judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by LeBel and Wagner,
JJ., on January 16, 2014.
Appeal dismissed.
Editor: Anick Ouellette-Levesque