The defendants raise one more issue with respect to both the existence of an identifiable class and the preferability of a class proceeding. Citing the judgment of Bauman J. (as he then was) in Samos v. Pattison, 2001 BCSC 1790, 22 B.L.R. (3d) 46 at para. 166, they argue that this is “the type of case where an identifiable class of persons with common issues is not obvious” and that therefore “the putative representative must show that the proposed class is defined sufficiently narrowly by leading evidence on the certification application.” This is “an air of reality test of a sort”.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.