The government of Ontario brought an action against various tobacco manufacturers seeking recovery of 50 billion dollars in health care costs that had been or would be paid by the government for treatment of its insureds' diseases or risks of diseases related to tobacco use. The claim was brought under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The government alleged that the manufacturers had engaged in an intentional scheme of deception, arguing, among other things, that the manufacturers had been aware of the harmful health effects of cigarette smoke and second-hand smoke for several decades but had suppressed evidence revealing these effects and had purposely misled the public about the health risks of cigarette smoke. Certain defendants challenged the propriety of the Court's jurisdiction over them, and depositions were taken in an attempt to discern jurisdiction. In this appeal from a Master's order on a refusals motion, the Court held that the Master erred in several respects when ordering the defendants' deponents to answer certain questions posed by the government, noting, among other things, that these questions were outside of the scope of the instant motion.
Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2011 ONSC 2504, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Canada (2011).
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.
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.
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.
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 my opinion, the Master, however, did err in determining the scope of proper questions. As the authorities above reveal, the scope of a cross-examination of a deponent is not the same as the scope of an examination for discovery. In the case at bar, the Master made the scope of the cross-examination co-extensive with an examination for discovery. Indeed, it is arguable that based on his approach to proportionality, discussed below, and in pursuit of the “equality of arms” principle, he enlarged the scope beyond what even might be available on an examination for discovery.
It is also my opinion that the Master erred by failing to apply the principle that a deponent may be asked questions that involve an undertaking to obtain information if the information is readily available or it is not unduly onerous to obtain the information. In the case at bar, the Master essentially ignored this principle. Even assuming that sophisticated state of the art search engines were available to the Defendants, answering questions and follow-up questions about events that covered a 60-year period are inherently difficult and finding answers would be difficult even if the person being examined had actually been a participant or witness to the events those many years ago, which was not the case for Mr. Cordeschi or Ms. Snook. The Master, however, expressly paid no heed to the difficulties inherent with the passage of time."
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.
The government of Ontario brought an action against various tobacco manufacturers seeking recovery of 50 billion dollars in health care costs that had been or would be paid by the government for treatment of its insureds' diseases or risks of diseases related to tobacco use. The claim was brought under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The government alleged that the manufacturers had engaged in an intentional scheme of deception, arguing, among other things, that the manufacturers had been aware of the harmful health effects of cigarette smoke and second-hand smoke for several decades but had suppressed evidence revealing these effects and had purposely misled the public about the health risks of cigarette smoke. Certain defendants challenged the propriety of the Court's jurisdiction over them, and depositions were taken in an attempt to discern jurisdiction. In this appeal from a Master's order on a refusals motion, the Court held that the Master erred in several respects when ordering the defendants' deponents to answer certain questions posed by the government, noting, among other things, that these questions were outside of the scope of the instant motion.