Did the motion judge err in law in granting substantive relief on a procedural motion?
[51] The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in determining the appellant’s substantive rights on a motion under s. 12 of the CPA. The appellant submits that the provisions of the CPA are procedural and do not modify or create substantive rights. Specifically, s. 5(1)(b) of the CPA is a procedural provision that cannot be used to abrogate contractual rights. The provisions of the Agreement providing terms and conditions for extension and assignment are substantive rights. A declaration that affects substantive rights is substantive relief. [52] The motion judge answered the appellant’s objection in para. 12 of his reasons, wherein he stated: The motion is concerned essentially with the scope of the class. A franchisee who provides a binding release will automatically be excluded from the class. This is a matter that relates to the requirement for certification in section 5(1)(b) of the CPA and, like the requirements in sections 5(1)(c) through (e), it is not a matter to be dea
