The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision of April 12, 2017, affirming its original decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal from the judgement of Justice Belobaba granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the lawsuit.
Sotos LLP was co-lead counsel in a class action against Bell Mobility Inc. (“Bell”) alleging that the expiry dates on Bell’s pre-paid wireless services were illegal.
The lawsuit on behalf of nearly a million Ontario customers of the Bell Mobility, Solo Mobile and Virgin Mobile Canada brands, alleges that Bell breached its contracts with its customers by seizing balances and that Bell engaged in “unfair business practices”, contrary to Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act.
More information can be found at www.bellmobilityclassaction.ca.
- April 12, 2017 – The Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed its original decision to dismiss the appeal. After reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., the Court of Appeal concluded that there was no basis to reach a different conclusion than had been reached in its October 20, 2016 decision.
- October 20, 2016 – The Supreme Court of Canada has sent this case back to the Ontario Court of Appeal “for disposition in accordance with Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.” The appeal was heard on Friday January 20, 2017.
- April 4, 2016 – The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision today dismissing the appeal of the judgment of Justice Belobaba granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the lawsuit. A copy of the decision can be found here. We are reviewing the decision to determine whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
- November 24, 2015: The Ontario Court of Appeal heard the class members’ appeal on November 23, 2015. The court reserved judgment, which means the court will draft reasons that it will forward at a later date, at which point the result of the appeal will be known. We will post the reasons when they are released. There is no deadline for the court’s reasons but we would anticipate receiving them before May 2016.
- The appeal was heard on November 23, 2015 at 10:30 am at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. Class Members and the public are invited to attend all or part of the hearing. Class Counsel is appealing the Honourable Justice Belobaba’s January 28th decision. We will provide further details regarding the appeal and the next steps in the case on this website.
- July 24, 2015: Bell filed its responding materials for the appeal. Click here to read Bell’s factum. The appeal will be heard on November 23, 2015 at 10:30 am at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. Class Members and the public are invited to attend all or part of the hearing.
- April 27, 2015: Sotos LLP and Goldblatt Partners LLP (“Class Counsel”) filed their materials for the appeal. Click here to read the Factum. Further updates will be posted here once a timetable has been determined for the hearing of the appeal. We will advise of the specific date of the appeal once it has been set by the Court of Appeal.
- March 23, 2015: Sotos LLP and Goldblatt Partners LLP (“Class Counsel”) filed a Notice of Appeal of his honour’s February 12, 2015 decision. We will advise of the date of the appeal once it has been set by the Court of Appeal.
- February 12, 2015: The Honourable Justice Belobaba released his decision on the summary judgement motion heard on January 28, 2015. His Honour answered the central common issues in favour of Bell. In dismissing the action against Bell, His Honour found that Bell did not breach the terms of the “top up” agreements with consumers by seizing unused credits and that the expiry and forfeiture of unused credit balances was not contrary to the Gift Card Regulation.
- January 28, 2015: The parties argued the merits of the case in a summary judgment motion before the Honourable Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The parties sought determination of two central common issues in this case including (1) whether Bell Mobility Inc. (“Bell”) breached its contract with the class members by seizing class members’ prepaid credits before it was contractually entitled to do so; and (2) whether Bell was prohibited from seizing “expired” pre-paid credits because of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and O. Reg. 17/05 (the “Gift Card Regulation”).
- December 16, 2013: The Ontario Divisional Court denied leave to appeal the certification decision.
- October 4, 2013: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision certifying the action as a class proceeding.
- May 21-22, 2013: The certification hearing was heard in Toronto before the Hon. Mr. Justice Belobaba. Judgment is pending. The court will determine whether the case can proceed this class-action and, if so, what issues can be tried commonly. Most certification decisions are subject to one or more levels of appeal. Accordingly a final determination of whether or not the case can proceed this class-action may be some time away.
Court Decisions and Orders
- Summary Judgment Decision of Justice Belobaba
- Endorsement of Ontario Divisional Court denying leave to appeal the certification (Dec 16, 2013)
- Reasons of Justice Belobaba certifying the action as a class proceeding (Oct 4, 2013)
March 7, 2017
Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Ontario Court of Appeal to reconsider the plaintiff’s appeal
December 20, 2013
Ontario Divisional Court denies leave to appeal in Bell Mobility class action
October 4, 2013
$100 million class action against Bell Mobility certified – more than 1 million customers affected
May 14, 2012
Bell Mobility Class Action Brought on Behalf of Pre‐Paid Wireless Consumers