MACARONIES HAIR CLUB AND LASER CENTER INC v BANK OF MONTREAL, 2021 ABCA 40
FRASER, KHULLAR AND PENTELECHUK JJA
1.9: Conflicts and inconsistencies with enactments
14.4: Right to appeal
The Appellants, Wal-Mart and Home Depot, who were purported class members in a class action, sought to appeal a Decision of the Case Management Judge to approve settlement of the class action. The Court of Appeal found that the Appellants did not have standing to bring the Appeal. In considering Rule 14.4, the Court noted that the Rule gives the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear an Appeal from a Decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench, but did not give the Appellants standing to launch the Appeal.
Specifically, this was because Rule 1.9 provides that an enactment, in this case the Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c C-16.5 (the “CPA”), prevails over the Rules to the extent of any inconsistency. Section 36 of the CPA only permits appeals of individual claim determinations, and not of settlements as a whole. In addition, the Court of Appeal noted the general rule is that only a party may appeal, except in exceptional circumstances, and found that as per the CPA, the Appellants were class members but not parties in the proceeding.View CanLII Details