The case concerns vehicles that produce emissions in excess of regulatory limits
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has rejected a proposed class action against manufacturers of diesel‑powered motor vehicles for emissions that allegedly violate regulatory limits.
In Tress v FCA US LLC, 2024 SKCA 31, Dane Ashley Bruce Tress applied for leave to appeal an order dismissing his bid for class certification against FCA US LLC and FCA Canada Inc., manufacturers of diesel‑powered motor vehicles. The case centred on allegations that the defendants had equipped diesel-powered vehicles with auxiliary emissions control devices or "defeat devices," which caused them to produce exhaust emissions in excess of prescribed regulatory limits.
However, an update, referred to as the Approved Emissions Modification (AEM), was developed and applied to address regulatory concerns, sparking debate over the existence of compensable losses for vehicle owners.
Tress's application for class action certification was previously dismissed by a chambers judge, who found that a class action would not be the preferable procedure for resolving the claims and that Tress did not meet the requirements of an adequate class representative. The judge noted the absence of evidence demonstrating any compensable loss suffered by class members and questioned Tress's residency in Saskatchewan at the time of commencing the action, a requirement under The Class Actions Act.
In his application for leave to appeal, Tress challenged the chambers decision on several grounds, arguing errors in law and fact, particularly regarding the necessity to prove compensable harm and the assessment of losses claimed, including loss of fuel efficiency, resale value, and vehicle quality. He also contested the finding on his residency requirement and the decision not to adjourn the certification hearing to allow for further evidence on this matter.
The Court of Appeal, in denying leave to appeal, held that Tress's proposed grounds of appeal did not demonstrate sufficient merit, particularly in light of existing judicial authority requiring evidence of compensable loss for class certification.
The court further affirmed the conjunctive nature of the test for class certification under Saskatchewan law, indicating that failure to meet any single criterion is sufficient to deny certification. The appellate court also dismissed the significance of Tress's residency at the commencement of the claim as moot, given the primary finding against the preferability of a class action for resolving the issues.
Ultimately, the court dismissed Tress’s application for leave to appeal, reaffirming the stringent criteria for class action certification and the importance of demonstrating a basis for alleged compensable losses.
