Law360 Canada (May 30, 2025, 3:10 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Michel (Appellant) from a court order dismissing the plaintiffs’ motion to certify an action against the respondent as a class proceeding. The underlying action and motion for certification were brought by both the appellant and Kahnapace as proposed representative plaintiffs, but only Michel appealed before the court. The plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim proposed a class action on behalf of four subclasses of inmates affected by the Custody Rating Scale (CRS) used by Correctional Services Canada (CSC). The claim alleged that the CRS and other tools used by the CSC were biased against the Indigenous female offenders, leading to overclassification and breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically s. 15. The plaintiffs sought various remedies, including damages and injunctions against the use of these tools. However, the Federal Court found that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under s. 15 of the Charter due to a lack of material facts and an inadequately defined class. The court also found that the claims did not raise common questions of law or fact, as the security classification process was individualized. Consequently, the court concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure. The court denied the plaintiffs leave to amend their Statement of Claim and reapply for certification, prompting the appellant to appeal. The appellant’s appeal focused on alleged errors by the Federal Court, including its finding that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and its conclusion that the claims were inherently individualistic. The appellant argued that the Federal Court failed to recognize that systemic discrimination could be established even if not all class members were affected in the same way.
HELD: Appeal allowed in part. The Court of Appeal amended the Federal Court’s order to grant the appellant leave to amend the Statement of Claim and reapply for certification, focusing on the s. 15 claim of systemic discrimination. The appellant would have an opportunity to serve and file a single Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and with leave to once reapply for certification based on the same evidentiary record that was before the Federal Court. Further, the court found no error in the Federal Court’s decision to strike the Statement of Claim for lack of material facts. It determined that the Federal Court erred in not allowing the appellant to amend the Statement of Claim to address the deficiencies. The court noted that systemic discrimination claims could raise common questions suitable for class proceedings.
Michel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2025] F.C.J. No. 445, Federal Court of Appeal, M.J.L. Gleason, K.S. Monaghan and G. Heckman JJ.A., March 11, 2025. Digest No. Law360CDA-May262025005