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. In this decision, the court ruled that a class action was not appropriate because the class could not be sufficiently identified, a class action was not the preferable procedure, and that the proposed litigation plan for determining individual claims would not provide the tobacco company with sufficient input or procedural safeguards.
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 short, while proof of a breach of a duty of care would be an essential step in establishing liability, the plaintiffs have not persuaded me that, notwithstanding the existence of the [page126] disputable individual issues that would remain, such proof would sufficiently achieve the objectives of access to justice, or judicial economy. The procedure under the CPA is not appropriate, or available, in every case where there are common issues. As Nordheimer J. observed in Moyes v. Fortune Financial Corp. (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 770, [2002] O.J. No. 4297 (S.C.J.), at pp. 779-80 O.R.: The question on a motion for certification is not simply whether there are common issues raised by the claims 2005 CanLII 40373 (ON SC)advanced. Any proposed class action that has any chance of being certified will, virtually by definition, have common issues. Rather, the issue is whether the resolution of the proposed common issues is going to move the litigation forward to a sufficient degree so as to justify certification of the action as a class proceeding. An important consideration in this regard is whether any individual issues that will remain for determination after the common issues are resolved are limited or whether what remains to be determined is sufficiently extensive that the determination of the common issues essentially marks the commencement, as opposed to the completion, of the liability inquiry."
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. In this decision, the court ruled that a class action was not appropriate because the class could not be sufficiently identified, a class action was not the preferable procedure, and that the proposed litigation plan for determining individual claims would not provide the tobacco company with sufficient input or procedural safeguards.