UBC Parking Fine Class Action

UBC PARKING FINE CLASS ACTION

An action was commenced against the University of British Columbia on January 11, 2005 alleging its parking practises to be unlawful. Specifically, it is alleged that between September 1, 1990 and the present, UBC unlawfully collected fines, towing fees, storage charges, administration fees and other expenses pursuant to their Parking Regulations.

June 24, 2010 - Application for Leave to Appeal
to the Supreme Court of Canada Denied

On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a judgment denying the application for leave to appeal made by the representative plaintiff.

As a result, there are no further legal avenues to pursue compensation for the class members in this lawsuit.

We are very disappointed by this result, as is the representative plaintiff, Dan Barbour. However, it has been a privilege to work on this case and we have appreciated the many communications we have had with several class members about their frustrating experiences with UBC Parking and Access Services. All class members can take comfort in the knowledge that the trial judge did find that UBC acted unlawfully. UBC had to resort to asking the BC Government to pass retroactive legislation so that UBC could avoid the consequences of its unlawful behaviour.

There are a few issues to tidy up but they will not affect individual class members. Accordingly, the class members should view this case as being at an end.

April 19, 2010 - Application for Leave to Appeal
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Docket No. 33642

The representative plaintiff has instructed us to seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the order of the Court of Appeal overturning the trial judgment. The leave application focuses on the issue of whether the British Columbia legislature may pass a law which dictates the outcome in a case before the courts, and effectively directs the court to overturn the decision of a trial judge. The leave application raises an issue of national importance of how the legislative branch of government interacts with the judicial branch of government.

Generally, applications for leave to appeal take several months. We expect that the court will rule on whether leave is granted sometime this fall. If leave is granted, the case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011. If it is not granted, the case will be at an end.

February 11, 2010 - British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has issued Reasons for Judgment overturning the Trial Judgment. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act is a sufficiently clear statement of the legislature’s intent to retroactively give UBC the power to create parking offences and penalties and to eradicate the effect of the Trial Judgment which held that UBC must pay restitution for having previously done so without the proper legislative authority. The Court of Appeal ruled that it would not hold UBC to its concession made at the outset of trial that it did not have the legislative authority to create offences and penalties; and that the Canadian constitution does not prohibit this sort of interference with cases which are before the courts. Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act is also clear enough to cover the breaches of natural justice alleged by the representative plaintiff (and which had not been ruled on by the Trial Judge), and to eliminate any possible compensation for breaches of natural justice.

November 25, 2009 - British Columbia Court of Appeal

On October 7, 2009, the BC government introduced Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act into the legislature. On October 29, 2009, Bill 13 received Royal Assent and became law.

Bill 13 retroactively validates UBC's Parking Regulations. On November 25, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed UBC's appeal of the trial judgment because of the effect Bill 13 has on the legal issues in the case. The Court of Appeal reserved its written reasons, which means that the Court of Appeal will issue a written judgment in due course explaining the reasons why it overturned the trial judgment on the basis of Bill 13.

August 21, 2009 - Notice Approved by Court

This is a court approved notice in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia, the parking fine class proceeding against UBC.

The purpose of this notice is to summarize the current status of the UBC parking fine class proceeding.

Currently, UBC has the ability to collect parking fines under the Parking Regulations, in the manner described below.

On March 30, 2009 the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a judgment after the trial of certain common issues in this case (the “Trial Judgment”). In summary, the court concluded:

UBC does not have the power under the University Act or by contract to charge and collect parking fines;

UBC does have the power to tow and collect reasonable towing fees for vehicles that are causing damage by parking in contravention of the Parking Regulations, but it cannot tow vehicles that are lawfully parked, or collect outstanding parking fines as a condition of release of the vehicle; and

class members are entitled to restitution of parking fines that they paid to UBC, subject to the possible application of certain defences which will be determined at a later date.

UBC has appealed the Trial Judgment. UBC’s appeal is scheduled to be heard in November, 2009. On July 10, 2009 the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a stay of the British Columbia Supreme Court decision with certain conditions (the “Stay”).

The Stay enables UBC, pending the appeal, to continue to enforce the Parking Regulations by charging fines for violations. Persons who violate the Parking Regulations can expect to receive Traffic Notices charging fines. In addition, violators will be subject to towing as set out in the Parking Regulations. The Stay is subject to three important terms:

funds collected by UBC as parking fines during the period of the stay will be held in trust by UBC for distribution by court order;

the recognition of academic achievement will in no way be impaired by the collection of parking fines during the Stay; and

the class period and the period for opting into the class in the class proceeding is to be extended until the termination of the Stay.

Persons who pay parking fines during the period of the Stay can become class members and should ensure that their name and address is provided to UBC at the time of payment, in order to facilitate repayment in the event that the court orders UBC to repay the funds collected.

Whether, when and how individuals may recover money will be determined by the courts in the future and will be the subject of further notices.

The class is represented by Sharon Matthews and Reidar Mogerman at:

Camp Fiorante Matthews
4th Floor, Randall Building
555 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 1Z6
Phone Line: (604) 689-7555
www.cfmlawyers.ca

A link to the Trial Judgment is: UBC Trial Judgment

A link to the order of the court setting out the common issues and answers is: UBC Order re Trial, March 2009

A link to the Stay is: UBC Stay July 2009

Further, this notice, relevant decisions, the pleadings, and other useful information can be found at Camp Fiorante Matthews’ website, www.cfmlawyers.ca.

April 2, 2009 - Appeal of Judgment on The Common Issues

UBC filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the judgment of Mr. Justice Goepel pronounced March 30, 2009.

It is likely this will delay the resolution on the issues which must be addressed before a claims process can be put in place.

This website will be updated from time to time. In the meantime, if you have not yet contacted Camp Fiorante Matthews and would like to do so in order that we can advise you when the claims administration process has been set up, please contact Linnae Roach of our office at lroach@cfmlawyers.ca or 604 689 7555 or toll free
1 800 689 2322.

March 30, 2009 - Judgment on The Common Issues

On March 30, 2009 Mr. Justice Goepel of the British Columbia Supreme Court issued reasons for judgment on the common issues. You can access the reasons for judgment by clicking on the following link:

Judge Goepel, re Barbour v. The University of British Columbia.

The reasons for judgment rule in favour of the class. The result is that all parking fines collected between September 1, 1990 and September 30, 2007 were unlawfully collected. Towing fees where the tow was for outstanding violations were unlawfully collected. The unlawfully collected fines and towing fees must be paid back subject to the following issues which must be resolved before the claims process can start:

UBC’s set off claims – UBC has claimed damages for unlawfully parked vehicles which must be resolved and those claims have not been addressed yet.

limitation periods – only unlawfully collected fines and towing fees paid within the last 6 years (January 1999) or 10 years (January 1995) from the commencement of the class action or subsequent to January 2005, will be repaid. Whether it will be 6 years or 10 years has not yet been determined.

claims administration process – a process for class members to come forward and be repaid must be developed and approved by the court.

The resolution of these issues will take a few months at least.

October 2008 Update

The trial of the common issues took place September 22 - 26, 2008 before Mr. Justice Goepel. The judgement was "reserved" which means that Mr. Justice Goepel is considering the matter and will issue a judgment in due course.

July 15, 2007 Update

On December 20, 2006 Mr. Justice Goepel certified that Barbour v. The University of British Columbia may proceed as a class action.

In April and May 2007 Mr. Justice Goepel heard UBC's application to have this case decertified and the representative plaintiff's application to add a common issue pertaining to remedy, to the certification order. On June 5, 2007 Mr. Justice Goepel upheld his previous ruling that this matter should proceed as a class action and granted the plaintiff's request that questions concerning remedies should be decided at the outcome of the common issues trial. Initially, the University of British Columbia intended to appeal these decisions, but has since abandoned the appeals.

To access the other court documents, click on the links below:

	« return to listings UBC PARKING FINE CLASS ACTION An action was commenced against the University of British Columbia on January 11, 2005 alleging its parking practises to be unlawful. Specifically, it is alleged that between September 1, 1990 and the present, UBC unlawfully collected fines, towing fees, storage charges, administration fees and other expenses pursuant to their Parking Regulations. June 24, 2010 - Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada Denied On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a judgment denying the application for leave to appeal made by the representative plaintiff. As a result, there are no further legal avenues to pursue compensation for the class members in this lawsuit. We are very disappointed by this result, as is the representative plaintiff, Dan Barbour. However, it has been a privilege to work on this case and we have appreciated the many communications we have had with several class members about their frustrating experiences with UBC Parking and Access Services. All class members can take comfort in the knowledge that the trial judge did find that UBC acted unlawfully. UBC had to resort to asking the BC Government to pass retroactive legislation so that UBC could avoid the consequences of its unlawful behaviour. There are a few issues to tidy up but they will not affect individual class members. Accordingly, the class members should view this case as being at an end. April 19, 2010 - Application for Leave to Appeal Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Docket No. 33642 The representative plaintiff has instructed us to seek leave to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the order of the Court of Appeal overturning the trial judgment. The leave application focuses on the issue of whether the British Columbia legislature may pass a law which dictates the outcome in a case before the courts, and effectively directs the court to overturn the decision of a trial judge. The leave application raises an issue of national importance of how the legislative branch of government interacts with the judicial branch of government. Generally, applications for leave to appeal take several months. We expect that the court will rule on whether leave is granted sometime this fall. If leave is granted, the case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011. If it is not granted, the case will be at an end. February 11, 2010 - British Columbia Court of Appeal The British Columbia Court of Appeal has issued Reasons for Judgment overturning the Trial Judgment. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act is a sufficiently clear statement of the legislature’s intent to retroactively give UBC the power to create parking offences and penalties and to eradicate the effect of the Trial Judgment which held that UBC must pay restitution for having previously done so without the proper legislative authority. The Court of Appeal ruled that it would not hold UBC to its concession made at the outset of trial that it did not have the legislative authority to create offences and penalties; and that the Canadian constitution does not prohibit this sort of interference with cases which are before the courts. Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act is also clear enough to cover the breaches of natural justice alleged by the representative plaintiff (and which had not been ruled on by the Trial Judge), and to eliminate any possible compensation for breaches of natural justice. November 25, 2009 - British Columbia Court of Appeal On October 7, 2009, the BC government introduced Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act into the legislature. On October 29, 2009, Bill 13 received Royal Assent and became law. Bill 13 retroactively validates UBC's Parking Regulations. On November 25, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed UBC's appeal of the trial judgment because of the effect Bill 13 has on the legal issues in the case. The Court of Appeal reserved its written reasons, which means that the Court of Appeal will issue a written judgment in due course explaining the reasons why it overturned the trial judgment on the basis of Bill 13. August 21, 2009 - Notice Approved by Court *This is a court approved notice in Barbour v. The University of British Columbia, the parking fine class proceeding against UBC.* The purpose of this notice is to summarize the current status of the UBC parking fine class proceeding. Currently, UBC has the ability to collect parking fines under the Parking Regulations, in the manner described below. On March 30, 2009 the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a judgment after the trial of certain common issues in this case (the “Trial Judgment”). In summary, the court concluded: UBC does not have the power under the University Act or by contract to charge and collect parking fines; UBC does have the power to tow and collect reasonable towing fees for vehicles that are causing damage by parking in contravention of the Parking Regulations, but it cannot tow vehicles that are lawfully parked, or collect outstanding parking fines as a condition of release of the vehicle; and class members are entitled to restitution of parking fines that they paid to UBC, subject to the possible application of certain defences which will be determined at a later date. UBC has appealed the Trial Judgment. UBC’s appeal is scheduled to be heard in November, 2009. On July 10, 2009 the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a stay of the British Columbia Supreme Court decision with certain conditions (the “Stay”). The Stay enables UBC, pending the appeal, to continue to enforce the Parking Regulations by charging fines for violations. Persons who violate the Parking Regulations can expect to receive Traffic Notices charging fines. In addition, violators will be subject to towing as set out in the Parking Regulations. The Stay is subject to three important terms: funds collected by UBC as parking fines during the period of the stay will be held in trust by UBC for distribution by court order; the recognition of academic achievement will in no way be impaired by the collection of parking fines during the Stay; and the class period and the period for opting into the class in the class proceeding is to be extended until the termination of the Stay. Persons who pay parking fines during the period of the Stay can become class members and should ensure that their name and address is provided to UBC at the time of payment, in order to facilitate repayment in the event that the court orders UBC to repay the funds collected. Whether, when and how individuals may recover money will be determined by the courts in the future and will be the subject of further notices. The class is represented by Sharon Matthews and Reidar Mogerman at: Camp Fiorante Matthews 4th Floor, Randall Building 555 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6B 1Z6 Phone Line: (604) 689-7555 www.cfmlawyers.ca A link to the Trial Judgment is: UBC Trial Judgment A link to the order of the court setting out the common issues and answers is: UBC Order re Trial, March 2009 A link to the Stay is: UBC Stay July 2009 Further, this notice, relevant decisions, the pleadings, and other useful information can be found at Camp Fiorante Matthews’ website, www.cfmlawyers.ca. April 2, 2009 - Appeal of Judgment on The Common Issues UBC filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the judgment of Mr. Justice Goepel pronounced March 30, 2009. It is likely this will delay the resolution on the issues which must be addressed before a claims process can be put in place. This website will be updated from time to time. In the meantime, if you have not yet contacted Camp Fiorante Matthews and would like to do so in order that we can advise you when the claims administration process has been set up, please contact Linnae Roach of our office at lroach@cfmlawyers.ca or 604 689 7555 or toll free 1 800 689 2322. March 30, 2009 - Judgment on The Common Issues On March 30, 2009 Mr. Justice Goepel of the British Columbia Supreme Court issued reasons for judgment on the common issues. You can access the reasons for judgment by clicking on the following link: Judge Goepel, re Barbour v. The University of British Columbia. The reasons for judgment rule in favour of the class. The result is that all parking fines collected between September 1, 1990 and September 30, 2007 were unlawfully collected. Towing fees where the tow was for outstanding violations were unlawfully collected. The unlawfully collected fines and towing fees must be paid back subject to the following issues which must be resolved before the claims process can start: UBC’s set off claims – UBC has claimed damages for unlawfully parked vehicles which must be resolved and those claims have not been addressed yet. limitation periods – only unlawfully collected fines and towing fees paid within the last 6 years (January 1999) or 10 years (January 1995) from the commencement of the class action or subsequent to January 2005, will be repaid. Whether it will be 6 years or 10 years has not yet been determined. claims administration process – a process for class members to come forward and be repaid must be developed and approved by the court. The resolution of these issues will take a few months at least. October 2008 Update The trial of the common issues took place September 22 - 26, 2008 before Mr. Justice Goepel. The judgement was "reserved" which means that Mr. Justice Goepel is considering the matter and will issue a judgment in due course. July 15, 2007 Update On December 20, 2006 Mr. Justice Goepel certified that Barbour v. The University of British Columbia may proceed as a class action. In April and May 2007 Mr. Justice Goepel heard UBC's application to have this case decertified and the representative plaintiff's application to add a common issue pertaining to remedy, to the certification order. On June 5, 2007 Mr. Justice Goepel upheld his previous ruling that this matter should proceed as a class action and granted the plaintiff's request that questions concerning remedies should be decided at the outcome of the common issues trial. Initially, the University of British Columbia intended to appeal these decisions, but has since abandoned the appeals. To access the other court documents, click on the links below: Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim Reasons for Judgment of Mr. Justice Goepel, December 20, 2006 Reasons for Judgement of Mr. Justice Goepel, June 5, 2007. Legal Notice of Class Action Certification Long Form of Notice to Class Members with Opt in & Opt out forms.