Law360 Canada ( July 17, 2025, 2:33 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants against a certification judge’s decision regarding a class action against respondents and cross-appeal by respondents to narrow the scope of the class action or dismiss it. The appellants proposed a class action against the respondents regarding defective BMW N20 engines in 2012-2015 model vehicles. The appellants acquired BMW vehicles equipped with N20 engines. They contended that, several years after acquiring their BMWs, their vehicles suddenly lost power because of the failure of their vehicles’ chain assembly system, resulting in catastrophic damage to the vehicles’ engines. The appellants sold their vehicles “as is” instead of repairing them, given the high repair costs quoted to them. They argued that the respondents failed to warn consumers about the serious safety risks associated with the BMW vehicles. They purported to represent a class of current and former owners and lessees of BMW vehicles with allegedly defective N20 engines. The certification judge certified the action on a narrower basis than proposed, focusing on negligent design or manufacturing claims related to repair costs. The judge declined to certify the duty to warn claim and found no basis for asserting universal defects across all class vehicles. The appellants appealed the decision, challenging the exclusion of class members who incurred no repair costs, the failure to certify the duty to warn claim, the breach of duty to compensate for shoddy goods, and the distributive costs award. The respondents cross-appealed, arguing that the certification judge should have further narrowed the scope of the class action or dismissed it entirely. They contended that the appellants failed to plead recoverable losses and had no viable cause of action....