Canada / 13 March 2009 / Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia / Michelle Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc. / CA036299
| Country | Canada |
| Court | Canada, Court of Appeal for British Columbia |
| Date | 13 March 2009 |
| Parties | Michelle Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc. |
| Case number | CA036299 |
| Source |
2009 BCCA 104 | online: CanLII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Michelle Seidel entered into a written cellular service contract with TELUS Communications, Inc. (“TELUS”), a cellular phone provider. The standard contract form contained a mediation and arbitration clause that included a waiver of any right to commence or participate in a class action suit against TELUS. Seidel initiated a claim against TELUS in the British Columbia Supreme Court in 2005 under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“BPCPA”). When she sought to have her claim certified as a class action, TELUS applied for a stay of all proceedings on the basis of the arbitration clause. The trial judge found that TELUS’ application was premature because the certification application had not been decided, and denied the stay. TELUS appealed the decision. TELUS argued that the case followed by the British Columbia Supreme Court, the 2004 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision MacKinnon v. Instaloans Financial Solution Centres (“MacKinnon CA”), had been overruled by the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decisions Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs (“Dell”) and Rogers Wireless Inc. v. Muroff, which both ruled that a class action is a procedural vehicle that does not modify the substantive rights created by an arbitration clause. The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stayed Seidel’s action. It held that Dell and Rogers had superseded MacKinnon CA, even though those cases dealt with arbitration clauses and class action proceedings under Quebec law. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration and class action legislations of both provinces were broadly similar. It noted that one of the few differences between the two arbitration laws is that, unlike Quebec law, the British Columbia Commercial Arbitration Act is not expressly modelled on the NYC. |
| reversed by : | |
| reverses : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
