Alberta Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of certification application in proposed data breach class action

The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a proposed class action over the disclosure of personal information by Equifax Canada in 2017. In March, Equifax Canada dismissed its proposed class action, which was seeking $150 million in damages and injunctive relief from the company, after it was served with the application.

An engineer at Equifax Canada had disclosed the breach to the plaintiff’s lawyer two days after it happened. The engineer shared information about the breach with other employees, who then shared it with others. By sharing information about their own exposure to potentially full data breaches, each employee knew that some of their colleagues had been affected by that same breach. In this case, sharing information about a data breach did not establish standing as a “representative”

Under Alberta’s Class Proceedings Act (CPA), which would have allowed them to bring their claims as part of this proposed class action against Equifax Canada Inc., or any other defendant involved in these proceedings according to several allegations made against them by plaintiffs’ counsel during opposing motions for summary judgment filed by defendants earlier this year

The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a proposed class action over the disclosure of personal information by Equifax Canada in 2017.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a proposed class action over the disclosure of personal information by Equifax Canada in 2017.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the proposed class action because it was not proven that each member of the class had been affected by the breach.

In March, Equifax Canada dismissed its proposed class action, which was seeking $150 million in damages and injunctive relief from the company, after it was served with the application.

In March, Equifax Canada dismissed its proposed class action, which was seeking $150 million in damages and injunctive relief from the company.

The company did so because it believed that a lawsuit brought by individuals would be more appropriate than one brought by a class of consumers. This is because an individual can choose whether or not to participate in any proposed settlement agreement (and if they do participate, they have the right to opt-out).

A class action involves all members of an affected group who may be eligible for compensation under certain circumstances–and those who do notopt-outt may not receive any compensation at all unless their claims are found valid under applicable laws such as provincial statutes or regulations governing privacy rights within specific industries.”

An engineer at Equifax Canada had disclosed the breach to the plaintiff’s lawyer two days after it happened.

In this case, the engineer was not a named plaintiff in the class action. He was also not an employee of Equifax Canada and was not a representative of the class.

He did not share information about the breach with other employees at Equifax Canada or any other company affiliated with Equifax Canada in general, nor did he have any knowledge that there had been an actual breachbeforeo hearing about it from his lawyer two days later (the day after discovering it).

The engineer shared information about the breach with other employees, who then shared it with others.

In Alberta, the engineer shared information about the breach with other employees, who then shared it with others. The engineer and his co-workers discussed how they would handle this situation, but did not obtain consent from anyone before doing so.

In a decision released on February 2 of this year, the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss certification proceedings.

The case involved a proposed class action lawsuit against Trans Canada Pipe Lines Limited (TransCanada), alleging that TransCanada was negligent in failing to protect its pipelines from harm caused by corrosion caused by saltwater infiltration into these pipelines during storms that occurred between 2010 and 2013 in western Canada.[1]

By sharing information about the breach with others, each employee knew that some of their colleagues had been affected by the breach.

By sharing information about the breach with others, each employee knew that some of their colleagues had been affected by the breach.

The Court found that it was reasonable for him to assume that people would share this information with others.

In this case, sharing information about a data breach was not enough to establish standing as a class representative in these proceedings.

In this case, sharing information about a data breach was not enough to establish standing as a class representative in these proceedings. The engineer shared information about the breach with other employees, who then shared it with others. This is not sufficient for standing under section 7(1) of the Class Proceedings Act or under section 11(b) of that Act — which are both required for certification applications to proceed — because:

• The engineer did not participate in any way in negotiating settlements or otherwise working on behalf of the affected parties;
• There was no evidence that he was acting on behalf of other affected persons; and
• There was no evidence that he had been employed by AMR before June 14, 2017, when they learned about their identity theft problem (which occurred between June 14 and July 15).

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a proposed class action over the disclosure of personal information by Equifax Canada in 2017.