"The plaintiff defines the proposed class as persons who, during the class period, purchased the defendant’s “light” or “mild” brands of cigarettes in British Columbia for personal, family or household use. The class is intended to include persons who are “consumers” within the meaning of section 1 of the TPA and exclude directors, officers and employees of the defendant. The class period covers the period from July 5, 1974, (the date the TPA came into force) to an opt-out/opt-in date set by this court. The defendant more or less adopted the third party’s objection to certification on the ground that the proposed class is overly broad and unmanageable. However, the majority of the third party submissions on over breadth have no relevance to this purely economic claim. The third party endeavours to characterize the nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action as a claim for personal injury to health resulting from smoking. It complains that the class would include those who purchased but never smoked the product and those who did not rely on representations by the defendant in purchasing the product. These submissions fail to understand the real nature of the plaintiff’s claim which is to obtain the disgorgement of revenues and profits earned by the defendant through the alleged deceptive marketing of the product. The benefit to the defendant is measured by the sales of the product in British Columbia to the end user, the consumer. The actual use made of the product by each individual consumer has no bearing on the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant manipulated the market by falsely creating a value for the product that exceeded its true value. Therefore, the class is defined by the act of purchasing the product in British Columbia. According to the affidavit evidence, these purchases have likely been recorded and can be measured by sales statistics. The challenge to this proposed class will be to establish economic injury to its members’ wallets as a result of their purchases, not personal injury to their health."