Civil Practice and Procedure – Class and representative proceedings
Class member A was appointed as representative plaintiff in action for unpaid wages. Class consisted of 154 individuals who were past and present employees of defendant. A was removed for putting his own interest ahead of that of class by trying to fire original class counsel J, and seeking to have another lawyer and firm appointed. In his motion to appoint new class counsel A made far reaching allegations against J. No replacement could be found . Plaintiffs' counsel brought motion to reappoint A. Motion was dismissed. It was clear that A was not capable of instructing counsel, thinking through approach to litigation, and otherwise leading class in action. While J could not find suitable replacement and wanted A reappointed to ensure access to justice for entire class, A lacked independent judgment, and was too volatile, too self-focused, and too easily manipulated and distracted from class' interest to qualify as representative plaintiff in this action. Defence brought motion to de-certify. Motion granted. Section 5(1)(e)(i) of Class Proceedings Act required representative plaintiff. Class did not have one and did not qualify to be certified.
Azar v. Strada Crush Limited (2020), 2020 CarswellOnt 911, 2020 ONSC 549, E.M. Morgan J. (Ont. S.C.J.).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca
