Buyers of light cigarettes in British Columbia sought class action status in a lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco Canada claiming that the company’s advertising attempted to deceive the public into thinking that light cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes in violation of a consumer protection law. The court affirmed class certification, agreeing that there were sufficient issues common to the class. Specifically, the court found that the question of whether Imperial engaged in deceptive practices in advertising light and mild cigarettes could be tried without reference to the circumstances of the individual class members. However, the court limited the time period of the class to claims after May 8, 1997 for two of the claims relating to the amount of damages that should be awarded.
Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2006 BCCA 235 (2006).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
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.
"Having regard to the authorities, I am of the opinion that an answer to the question framed as question (v), namely, "Did the Defendant engage in deceptive acts or practices in the solicitation, offer, advertisement and promotion of its light and mild brands of cigarettes as alleged in the statement of claim contrary to the TPA and/or BPCPA?" can be appropriately tried as a common issue. I do not consider that the learned chambers judge erred in certifying that question as well as questions (vi) and (vii), (relief questions), as being suitable for trial as common issues. Likewise, by a parity of reasoning with the situation in Rumley, wherein it was found that a question concerning punitive damages could be tried as a common issue, subject to what I later say about limitations, I do not consider that the learned chambers judge erred in certifying heading (ix) as a common issue, namely, "If the Court finds that the Defendant has engaged in deceptive acts or practices contrary to the TPA, should punitive or exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendant and, if so, in what amount?" A class action proceeding would be the preferable manner for the fair and efficient disposition of these issues. The resolution of these issues would serve to move the litigation forward. I note that the resolution of issue (v) would either significantly advance the litigation or effectively bring it to an end."
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.
Buyers of light cigarettes in British Columbia sought class action status in a lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco Canada claiming that the company’s advertising attempted to deceive the public into thinking that light cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes in violation of a consumer protection law. The court affirmed class certification, agreeing that there were sufficient issues common to the class. Specifically, the court found that the question of whether Imperial engaged in deceptive practices in advertising light and mild cigarettes could be tried without reference to the circumstances of the individual class members. However, the court limited the time period of the class to claims after May 8, 1997 for two of the claims relating to the amount of damages that should be awarded.