Skip to main content
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are agreeing to our use of cookies as described in our privacy policy.
Client Work

Webster v. Robbins Parking Service Ltd., 2016 BCSC 1863

Reading Time 2 minute read Subscribe

Imperial Parking

In Webster v. Robbins Parking Service Ltd., 2016 BCSC 1863, Fasken successfully represented Imperial Parking Canada Corporation in defeating certification of a class proceeding against it.  Impark is a leading national parking company, operating in 15 cities across Canada and 13 cities in the United States.  The allegations against Impark arose in relation to all parking lots where their automatic ticket machines dispensed pre-paid parking tickets. The plaintiffs alleged that the violation fees charged by Impark to motorists who failed to display a valid parking ticket were unlawful on numerous  grounds, including that the agreements to pay the violation fees were uncertain, unconscionable and contrary to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“BPCPA”).   The plaintiffs sought to bring their proposed class action on behalf of all those persons who had paid such violation fees, and the remedies sought included damages and restitution for unjust enrichment and unconscionability and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case was argued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia over 5 days in June 2016, with Reasons for Judgment on October 11, 2016.  The Court denied certification and dismissed all the claims on the merits.  On the merits, the Court held that it was plain and obvious that the essential terms of the parking agreements were clear and understandable, and not unconscionable or deceptive under the common law or the BPCPA.  The Court also held that the claims did not raise common issues suitable for a class proceeding.
Fasken represented Imperial Parking Canada Corporation with a tead led by Simon Coval, QC and Tracey M. Cohen, QC.


    Receive email updates from our team