Quebec Council on Smoking and Health v. JTI-MacDonald Corp.
Two class action lawsuits were filed against three major Canadian tobacco companies on behalf of Quebec residents addicted to nicotine and residents suffering from tobacco-related diseases. In this ruling, the court refused a request by tobacco companies to dismiss all or parts of the lawsuits. The court allowed the case to continue so that the class members could attempt to prove that the tobacco companies’ actions caused class members to smoke and to prove financial damages.
Quebec Council on Smoking and Health v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2013 QCCS 1924 (2013).
Canada
May 9, 2013
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.
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.
"The Companies hammer at the argument that the Plaintiffs must prove each and every element of liability with respect to each and every class member. In doing so, they would have the Court rule that it is not allowed even to try to see the forest because of the trees. They use the wording of article 1031 as their anvil.
Article 1031 reads as follows: 1031. The court orders collective recovery if the evidence produced enables the establishment with sufficient accuracy of the total amount of the claims of the members; it then determines the amount owed by the debtor even if the identity of each of the members or the exact amount of their claims is not established. (The Court's emphasis)
The Court sees no insurmountable obstacle there to using epidemiological statistics to establish the total amount of the claims for the purpose of collective recovery.
Epidemiological estimates indicate and take into account degrees of probability and confidence intervals. As well, a judge, assisted by the defendants' experts, could adjust by those factors in order to determine the amount of collective recovery. The resulting number could well demonstrate "sufficient accuracy", remembering that the Code stops well short of requiring mathematical perfection on this point, notwithstanding the Companies' urgings.
In light of the high reliability of statistical estimates at the macro level, the estimate of collective damages should be acceptably close to the "reality", assuming that it was humanly possible to calculate that. Thus, proceeding in this manner should cause no real prejudice or injustice to a defendant with respect to the total number of dollars assessed by way of collective recovery. To the contrary, it would spare him the expense of repeated and costly contestations on the individual level that would in all statistical likelihood come out to about the same figure. That said, questions do remain, among others, to determine what is sufficient accuracy in this particular action. On the merits, the Court might well end up siding with the Companies' position on this issue, but it is certainly not the time to decide that now in light of the proof already in the record. The Companies should have the opportunity to counter this proof and make their arguments on these points, and the Court will grant them that opportunity."
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 against three major Canadian tobacco companies on behalf of Quebec residents addicted to nicotine and residents suffering from tobacco-related diseases. In this ruling, the court refused a request by tobacco companies to dismiss all or parts of the lawsuits. The court allowed the case to continue so that the class members could attempt to prove that the tobacco companies’ actions caused class members to smoke and to prove financial damages.