In Lilleyman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Vanessa Lilleyman appealed the denial of her motion to certify a class action in Canada, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the canned tuna market. She claimed the defendants, including Bumble Bee Foods, conspired to inflate prices in Canada, violating the Competition Act.

The Ontario Superior Court originally dismissed her certification motion, citing three main reasons:

1. Cause of Action: The judge found that Lilleyman failed to plead sufficient material facts to show a reasonable cause of action. The alleged U.S. price-fixing conspiracy did not clearly extend to the Canadian market.
2. Common Issues: The judge determined there was no factual basis to prove common issues for the class members. The evidence provided focused on the U.S. market, lacking a clear link to Canadian consumers.
3. Preferable Procedure: Without common issues, a class action was not deemed the best way to resolve the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, agreeing that the original judge correctly applied the legal standards. The appeal was dismissed, as the plaintiff's claim lacked the necessary factual foundation to proceed in Canada. The court also confirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal, noting that the lower court’s decision effectively ended the plaintiff's case. The defendants were awarded costs in the amount of $80,000.