Two class action lawsuits were filed in Canada in 1998 against major tobacco companies; the cases were later combined. One class (Blais) involved Quebec residents with lung cancer, throat cancer, or emphysema. The other class (Letourneau) involved Quebec residents addicted to nicotine. After a lengthy trial, the court found that the tobacco companies caused injury, failed to inform customers of the risks and dangers of its products, and violated Quebec law.
In the Blais case, the court awarded moral damages (e.g., for pain and suffering) of $15.5 billion, to be paid jointly by the three tobacco companies. In the Letourneau case, although the court found that the tobacco companies were at fault, it did not award moral damages because there was not enough evidence to determine the total amount of the class members’ claims. In both cases the court awarded punitive damages, which it calculated based on one year of before-tax profits for each tobacco company. In Blais, the court reduced this award to the symbolic amount of $30,000 for each defendant, representing one dollar for each death the tobacco industry causes in Canada each year. In Letourneau, the court awarded punitive damages of $131 million. The tobacco companies must make an initial deposit on the judgment of $1 billion while the appeal is pending.
Note: this decision was upheld on appeal, see JTI, et al. v. Letourneau, et al., No 500-09-025385-154, 500-09-025386-152 et 500-09-025387-150, (Quebec Court of Appeals 2019).
Letourneau, et al. v. BAT, PMI, JTI, No 500-06-000076-980 and No 500-06-000070-983, (Quebec 2015).
Canada
May 27, 2015
Superior Court, District of Montreal (Class Action Division)
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
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.
Courts may sanction or reprimand parties for especially egregious behavior during court proceedings.
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.
"Getting back to the question at hand, to determine the starting date of ITL's knowledge of the dangers of its products one need only note that, over the Class Period, ITL adopted as its working hypothesis that smoking caused disease. The research efforts of its fleet of scientists, which at times numbered over 70 people in Montreal alone, were at all relevant times premised on that hypothesis. It follows that, since the company was going to great lengths to eradicate the dangers, it had to know of them. Speaking of research, it should not be overlooked that one of the main research projects of the Companies, dating back even to before the Class Period, was the development of filters. Their function is to filter out the tar from the smoke, and it is from the tar, as it was famously reported by an eminent British researcher, that people die.
Then there is the expert evidence offered by the three Companies as to the date at which the public should be held to have known about the risks and dangers. Messrs. Duch, Flaherty and Lacoursière put that date as falling between 1954 (for Duch) and the mid-1960s (for Flaherty).
Although to a large degree the Court rejects the evidence of Messrs. Flaherty and Lacoursière, as explained later, there is no reason not to take account of such an admission as it reflects on the Companies' knowledge. It is merely common sense to say that, advised by scientists and affiliated companies on the subject, the Companies level of knowledge of their products far outpaced that of the general public both in substance and in time. These experts' evidence leads us to conclude that the Companies had full knowledge of the risks and dangers of smoking by the beginning of the Class Period."
"The two class actions against the Canadian cigarette companies are maintained in part.
In both actions, the claim for common or collective damages was limited to moral damages and punitive damages, with both classes of plaintiffs renouncing their potential right to make individual claims for compensatory damages, such as loss of income.
In the Blais File, taken in the name of a class of persons with lung cancer, throat cancer or emphysema, the Court finds the defendants liable for both moral and punitive damages. It holds that they committed four separate faults, including under the general duty not to cause injury to another person, under the duty of a manufacturer to inform its customers of the risks and dangers of its products, under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act."
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.
Two class action lawsuits were filed in Canada in 1998 against major tobacco companies; the cases were later combined. One class (Blais) involved Quebec residents with lung cancer, throat cancer, or emphysema. The other class (Letourneau) involved Quebec residents addicted to nicotine. After a lengthy trial, the court found that the tobacco companies caused injury, failed to inform customers of the risks and dangers of its products, and violated Quebec law.
In the Blais case, the court awarded moral damages (e.g., for pain and suffering) of $15.5 billion, to be paid jointly by the three tobacco companies. In the Letourneau case, although the court found that the tobacco companies were at fault, it did not award moral damages because there was not enough evidence to determine the total amount of the class members’ claims. In both cases the court awarded punitive damages, which it calculated based on one year of before-tax profits for each tobacco company. In Blais, the court reduced this award to the symbolic amount of $30,000 for each defendant, representing one dollar for each death the tobacco industry causes in Canada each year. In Letourneau, the court awarded punitive damages of $131 million. The tobacco companies must make an initial deposit on the judgment of $1 billion while the appeal is pending.
Note: this decision was upheld on appeal, see JTI, et al. v. Letourneau, et al., No 500-09-025385-154, 500-09-025386-152 et 500-09-025387-150, (Quebec Court of Appeals 2019).