Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 MARCH 2018

BCSC Clarifies The Evidentiary Requirements For Establishing Commonality Of Harm

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

Canadian courts have consistently cautioned against applying an exacting standard of scrutiny at the certification stage. But the B.C. Supreme Court's recent decision in Ewert v. Nippon Yusen...

CanadaTransport

Canadian courts have consistently cautioned against applying an exacting standard of scrutiny at the certification stage. But the B.C. Supreme Court's recent decision in Ewert v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha issues an important reminder that the standard of assessing evidence at the certification requires more than just symbolic scrutiny.

In Ewert, the Court denied certification due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate a credible methodology to show harm to indirect purchasers. In doing so, the Court reminded prospective class action plaintiffs that certification is not a "file, smile, and certify" exercise.1

Facts

The plaintiff commenced an action alleging price-fixing by several major operators of roll-on/roll-off ("RoRo") vessels for shipping vehicles and heavy equipment to Canada.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from