Family members whose relatives died in a house fire allegedly caused by a cigarette sued the tobacco company claiming that the company’s cigarettes were defective because they were not “fire safe”. The plaintiffs sought class action status on behalf of other Canadians who were injured or suffered a loss as a result of a cigarette fire that occurred after October 1, 1987. This decision affirmed an earlier ruling finding that a class action was not appropriate because the definition of the class relied on the outcome of individual claims to determine who would be part of the class. Additionally, the court found that a class action was not the preferable procedure because long and complex trials would be necessary on individual claims even after common issues are resolved.
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.
Measures dealing with criminal and civil liability, including compensation.
(See FCTC Art. 19)
Substantive Issues
None
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 Cullity J. was correct in rejecting that submission on the basis that to do otherwise would mean that if an individual lawsuit would not be viable a workable class proceeding has to be considered to be a preferable procedure. Such a finding would ignore the provisions of specific requirements of s.5(1). What permeates Cullity J.’s carefully reasoned decision on these points is his finding that the individual issues that would have to be determined in each case simply overwhelm any benefit that may be available by a determination of the 2 common issues. The wealth of causation issues that remain to be determined in each case, as discussed by Cullity J., when added to the other issues of contributory negligence, limitations, volenti non fit injuria and potential third party claims amply support the conclusion that long and complex individual trials will necessarily result even after common issues have been determined. There was ample evidence before Cullity J. to support that conclusion."
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.
Family members whose relatives died in a house fire allegedly caused by a cigarette sued the tobacco company claiming that the company’s cigarettes were defective because they were not “fire safe”. The plaintiffs sought class action status on behalf of other Canadians who were injured or suffered a loss as a result of a cigarette fire that occurred after October 1, 1987. This decision affirmed an earlier ruling finding that a class action was not appropriate because the definition of the class relied on the outcome of individual claims to determine who would be part of the class. Additionally, the court found that a class action was not the preferable procedure because long and complex trials would be necessary on individual claims even after common issues are resolved.