Imperial Tobacco Canada v. Attorney General of Quebec
Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of the Tobacco-Related Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allows the government to sue tobacco manufacturers to recover the health care costs for individuals with tobacco-related illnesses. The Appeals Court of Quebec upheld the constitutionality of the law and dismissed the tobacco company’s appeal. The court relied, in part, on a decision from British Columbia upholding a similar law. The court found that the Quebec law did not violate the independence of the judiciary nor did it violate the tobacco companies' right to a fair trial.
Imperial Tobacco Canada v. Attorney General of Quebec, No. 500-09-024341-141, Quebec Court of Appeals (2015).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Governments or insurance agencies may seek reimbursement from the tobacco companies for health care costs related to tobacco. The most famous example is the case brought by individual states in the U.S.A. that resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"In sum, parliamentary supremacy allows the legislator to modify the law as he wishes, as long as these modifications respect constitutional limits. Here, the appellants have not demonstrated in what way the elimination of prescription, or the other changes made in the rules of evidence and civil procedure, would contravene their right to a fair trial, even if, in fact, it does deprive them of some of their means for defense."
"As far as the administration of evidence is concerned, Article 13 of the Law dispenses the government from identifying the individual members of the population on whose behalf it is filing its claim, along with having to establish the cause of the illness of each individual, and to prove the expenses incurred for each person. Its second paragraph also waives compulsory interviews with individuals on their state of health, or compelling them to produce medical records. However, in light of Article 14, manufacturers can ask the court to order the production of statistically significant samples from records of beneficiaries or of care provided, and to set the terms for the disclosure of the samples, providing the measures necessary to ensure protection of the identity of the beneficiaries in question. These articles are primarily intended to protect the privacy of beneficiaries receiving health care, rather than to deprive manufacturers of crucial elements of evidence. They do not restrict their right to peruse the evidence presented against them and to respond to it, since this information (which concerns individual members of the population) is not likely to be introduced into evidence by the government, whose action is non-subrogatory in character. Article 14 of the Law, in any event, permits them to request statistically representative sampling. Article 1570 also provides that the link of causality and the cost of health care claimed can be established through the use of statistical information, drawn from epidemiological, sociological or other studies. Through Article 2571, these rules are applicable to any action for damages and interest for harm caused by tobacco as a result of a fault committed in Québec, by one or several manufacturers. Judge Major recognized that the similar provisions in the British Columbia Law served to thwart the systemic advantages favoring manufacturers as a result of the traditional rules of civil liability. These views, although issued in a context of common law, can easily be transposed here."
"The appellants find it shocking that the burden of proof for the government and other beneficiaries has been retroactively modified by the Law, even for cases that are pending. They find it equally unacceptable that the Law permits plaintiffs to prove causality based only on statistical information or epidemiological, sociological or other studies. In my opinion, they are not completely wrong. In fact, the Law is particularly severe towards them, and it has considerably lightened the burden of proof of the government and other beneficiaries of the Law. The legislator has chosen to target the tobacco products industry and to implement measures that one could characterize as “harsh” towards it as far as civil liability is concerned. Despite this observation, it remains established that it is not the role of this Court to call into question the choices made by the legislator or the appropriateness of a law."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of the Tobacco-Related Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allows the government to sue tobacco manufacturers to recover the health care costs for individuals with tobacco-related illnesses. The Appeals Court of Quebec upheld the constitutionality of the law and dismissed the tobacco company’s appeal. The court relied, in part, on a decision from British Columbia upholding a similar law. The court found that the Quebec law did not violate the independence of the judiciary nor did it violate the tobacco companies' right to a fair trial.