Ontario v. Rothmans Inc.

The government of Ontario sued a variety of tobacco manufacturers seeking to recover $50 billion in health care costs caused by tobacco-related disease. The claim was brought under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, an Ontario law that gives the government the right to recover health care costs arising from “tobacco-related wrongs.”  The government alleged that the tobacco companies engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to mislead Ontario about the health risks of smoking and to suppress information about the dangers of smoking. Six of the foreign tobacco companies argued that the Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction over them. The appeals court affirmed an earlier ruling finding that that the court has sufficient jurisdiction to proceed against the foreign companies. 

Ontario v. Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353 (2013).

  • Canada
  • May 30, 2013
  • Court of Appeal for Ontario

Parties

Plaintiff Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Defendant

  • Altria Group, Inc.
  • B.A.T. Industries P.L.C.
  • British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited
  • British American Tobacco p.l.c.
  • Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council
  • Carreras Rothmans Limited
  • Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited
  • JTI-Macdonald Corp.
  • Philip Morris International, Inc.
  • Philip Morris U.S.A. Inc.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc.
  • Rothmans Inc.
  • Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.

Legislation Cited

Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009, S.O. 2009

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The duties at issue are clear cut: the duty to design and manufacture a reasonably safe product; the duty to warn the public about the risks of smoking; the duty not to misrepresent to the public the risks of smoking; and the duty to prevent children and adolescents from starting or continuing to smoke. The manner in which Ontario alleges the appellants breached these duties is equally clear cut. In essence, it is alleged that they conspired with Canadian members of their respective Groups, and with members of other Groups, to mislead Ontario and persons in Ontario about the health risks of smoking and to suppress information about the dangers of smoking. In relation to each appellant, the motion judge gave examples derived from the pleadings, or from the pleadings and the evidence adduced on the motion, concerning how Ontario alleges this was done. In short, this is not a case where the statement of claim contains nothing more than a series of bald allegations devoid of any factual foundation. We are satisfied that the pleadings, in combination with the affidavit evidence filed by the parties, adequately establish a cause of action known to law with a sufficient connection to Ontario."
"In substance, Ontario’s claim is that, since the 1950’s, several of the defendants have been committing “tobacco related wrongs” by manufacturing and distributing cigarettes in Ontario when they knew or ought to have known that smoking cigarettes and being exposed to second-hand smoke could cause or contribute to disease. In addition, Ontario asserts that all of the defendants have engaged in various conspiracies to mislead the government and the public about the dangers of smoking and to suppress information about those dangers. In conducting themselves in this manner, all of the defendants have breached a number of common law obligations to the people of Ontario flowing from the dangerous nature of their product."