Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. - Classaction.ca
Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. - Classaction.ca Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. - Classaction.ca
contractors, subcontractors, engineers and architects owe a duty to successors in titlein immovable property for economic loss suffered as a result of faulty construction,design and workmanship [citations omitted]. However, it is right to note that fromthe tone of Dickson J.'s reasons in Fraser-Reid v. Droumtsekas, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 720,at pp. 729-31, he would appear to be cool to the idea, though he found itunnecessary to canvass the point. For my part, I would require argument moresquarely focused on the issue before entertaining this possibility." 42 It would seem, therefore, that the possibility exists that claims for repairs in non-dangeroussituations may yet be held to be recoverable. It is at least clear that the issue is not foreclosed. Underthe prevailing principles dealing with whether a cause of action is disclosed, it has been held thatcauses of action which are not settled in the jurisprudence should be allowed to proceed. As MadamJustice Wilson said in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., supra, at pp. 990-991:"Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that where a statement of claim reveals adifficult and important point of law, it may well be critical that the action be allowedto proceed. Only in this way can we be sure that the common law in general, and thelaw of torts in particular, will continue to evolve to meet the legal challenges thatarise in our modern industrial society."See also R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd. v. Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 778(C.A.) at p. 782 and Zundel v. Boudria, White et al., [1999] O.J. No. 4244 (C.A.) at para. 5. 43 I conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement that the statement ofclaim discloses a proper cause of action with respect to each of the causes of action alleged as wellas with respect to the issue of non-leakers and mere leakers.B. Identifiable class 44 There is an identifiable class, at least insofar as Shell is concerned, that is defined by objectivecriteria. It is possible for any person to determine whether they are a member of the proposed classbecause the evidence establishes that the manufacturers of polybutylene pipe mark productidentification information directly on the surface of the pipe itself. Therefore, any given homeowneronly has to look at the pipe installed in his or her house to determine if they are members of theproposed class. 45 The issue differs, however, with respect to Celanese. The evidence is that visual inspectioncannot necessarily determine whether a fitting is made of Celcon (Celanese's product) or Delrin (DuPont's product) or some other plastic material. While some manufacturers mark their products, thosemarkings may not be readily observable. Further, some manufacturers made their fittings from bothCelanese's product and from Du Pont's product and therefore the manufacturer's mark would notindicate whether Celcon or Delrin was used. Consequently, in such situations or in cases where theproduct markings could not be observed, each fitting would have to be removed and then chemicallytested to determine whether it was made from Celcon. There will, therefore, be situations where agiven homeowner will be unable to tell from a visual inspection whether he or she has a plumbingsystem that employs plastic fittings made of Celcon. 46 The importance of an identifiable class and class definition was highlighted in Western
Canadian Shopping Centre Inc. v. Dutton (2001), 201 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.C.C.) where Chief JusticeMcLachlin said, at p. 401:"First, the class must be capable of clear definition. Class definition is criticalbecause it identifies the individuals entitled to notice, entitled to relief (if relief isawarded), and bound by the judgment. It is essential, therefore, that the class bedefined clearly at the outset of the litigation. The definition should state objectivecriteria by which members of the class can be identified. While the criteria shouldbear a rational relationship to the common issues asserted by all class members, thecriteria should not depend on the outcome of the litigation. It is not necessary thatevery class member be named or known." 47 Although not expressly stated by the Chief Justice, a clearly defined class is also required inorder that persons will know if they are members of the class so that they may, in turn, decide if theywish to have their rights determined within the class proceeding, or if they would prefer to opt outof the class proceeding and have their rights determined in another fashion, or not at all. It isextremely important, therefore, that the class definition be one where any person can tell, with aminimum of effort, whether he or she is a member of the proposed class. 48 This requirement is met with respect to Shell because, as I have noted, the homeowner onlyneeds to look at the pipes to determine if they are polybutylene pipes. The fittings are, however,another matter. It does not provide a clearly identifiable class if each homeowner is required to havethe fittings removed from their plumbing systems and chemically tested in order to determine if thefittings are ones covered by the claims advanced. There is no evidence before me as to the costs ofremoving and testing these fixtures but, in any event, it would seem unlikely that, absent an existingproblem with the plumbing system, any homeowner would be prepared to go through the expenseand inconvenience of having such testing done nor should they be required to do so in order todetermine if they are part of this action and, if so, whether they wish to have their rights dealt within this action. 49 It is possible that the problem regarding the identifiable class for Celanese could be dealt withby narrowing the definition of the class to include only those fittings manufactured by specificmanufacturers and that are clearly marked. There are two difficulties with that approach, however.First, it is not clear on the evidence that it is beyond doubt that any particular manufacturer usedonly Celcon to manufacture its fittings (although there is a fair belief that one manufacturer, Qest,may fall into that category). Second, amending the class definition in such a fashion, runs the riskof being arbitrary in its result by including only some who have a claim while excluding others whomay also have a claim. I earlier mentioned the difficulty of a class definition that was overlyinclusive. It seems to me that a class definition which is arbitrarily under inclusive is equallyproblematic. 50 I conclude therefore that the requirement that there be an identifiable class is satisfied withrespect to Shell but that it is not with respect to Celanese.C. Common Issues 51 The common issues, as stated by the plaintiffs in their factum, are:
- Page 1 and 2: Case Name:Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co.P
- Page 3 and 4: to adequately test their products a
- Page 5 and 6: completely suitable material from w
- Page 7 and 8: does not establish liability on Cel
- Page 9 and 10: include persons who do not have a c
- Page 11: The defendants further contend that
- Page 15 and 16: Punitive Damages10. In light of the
- Page 17 and 18: the common issues trial versus the
- Page 19 and 20: 95. Q. Right. So, typically, houses
- Page 21 and 22: 107. Q. And the leak could be cause
- Page 23 and 24: out of some judgments to date, and
- Page 25 and 26: water pressures, answering the scie
- Page 27 and 28: members of the proposed class. Howe
contractors, subcontractors, engineers and architects owe a duty to successors in titlein immovable property for economic loss suffered as a result of faulty construction,design and workmanship [citations omitted]. However, it is right to note that fromthe tone of Dickson J.'s reasons in Fraser-Reid v. Droumtsekas, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 720,at pp. 729-31, he would appear to be cool to the idea, though he found itunnecessary to <strong>ca</strong>nvass the point. For my part, I would require argument moresquarely focused on the issue before entertaining this possibility." 42 It would seem, therefore, that the possibility exists that claims for repairs in non-dangeroussituations may yet be held to be recoverable. It is at least clear that the issue is not foreclosed. Underthe prevailing principles dealing with whether a <strong>ca</strong>use of action is disclosed, it has been held that<strong>ca</strong>uses of action which are not settled in the jurisprudence should be allowed to proceed. As MadamJustice Wilson said in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., supra, at pp. 990-991:"Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that where a statement of claim reveals adifficult and important point of law, it may well be criti<strong>ca</strong>l that the action be allowedto proceed. Only in this way <strong>ca</strong>n we be sure that the common law in general, and thelaw of torts in particular, will continue to evolve to meet the legal challenges thatarise in our modern industrial society."See also R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd. v. Stadium <strong>Co</strong>rp. of Ontario Ltd. (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 778(C.A.) at p. 782 and Zundel v. Boudria, White et al., [1999] O.J. No. 4244 (C.A.) at para. 5. 43 I conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement that the statement ofclaim discloses a proper <strong>ca</strong>use of action with respect to each of the <strong>ca</strong>uses of action alleged as wellas with respect to the issue of non-leakers and mere leakers.B. Identifiable class 44 There is an identifiable class, at least insofar as <strong>Shell</strong> is concerned, that is defined by objectivecriteria. It is possible for any person to determine whether they are a member of the proposed classbe<strong>ca</strong>use the evidence establishes that the manufacturers of polybutylene pipe mark productidentifi<strong>ca</strong>tion information directly on the surface of the pipe itself. Therefore, any given homeowneronly has to look at the pipe installed in his or her house to determine if they are members of theproposed class. 45 The issue differs, however, with respect to Celanese. The evidence is that visual inspection<strong>ca</strong>nnot necessarily determine whether a fitting is made of Celcon (Celanese's product) or Delrin (DuPont's product) or some other plastic material. While some manufacturers mark their products, thosemarkings may not be readily observable. Further, some manufacturers made their fittings from bothCelanese's product and from Du Pont's product and therefore the manufacturer's mark would notindi<strong>ca</strong>te whether Celcon or Delrin was used. <strong>Co</strong>nsequently, in such situations or in <strong>ca</strong>ses where theproduct markings could not be observed, each fitting would have to be removed and then chemi<strong>ca</strong>llytested to determine whether it was made from Celcon. There will, therefore, be situations where agiven homeowner will be unable to tell from a visual inspection whether he or she has a plumbingsystem that employs plastic fittings made of Celcon. 46 The importance of an identifiable class and class definition was highlighted in Western
Change language