Buyers of light cigarettes sought class action status in a lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco Canada. The claim alleged that the tobacco company’s advertising attempted to deceive the public into thinking that “light” and “mild” cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes in violation of a consumer protection law. A Canadian court of appeal affirmed an earlier decision ruling that class action status could not be granted because the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. Because the plaintiffs relied on the tobacco advertising but did not purchase cigarettes directly from the tobacco company, they did not have a direct relationship with the tobacco company and, therefore, were not eligible to sue the company under the law.
Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2010 NLCA 21 (2010).
Canada
Mar 22, 2010
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
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 fundamental difficulty with Mr. Sparkes’ submission is that he has failed to plead a basis on which the court could conclude that he suffered an economic “loss” in the sense of an economic injury. Such a loss is a constituent element of a claim in negligence. The above paragraphs in the statement of claim relate to damages sought by way of compensation. The need to first establish a loss is clear from paragraph 14(2)(b) of the Trade Practices Act which provides for an award of damages “for a loss suffered by the consumer” (emphasis added). Paragraphs (c) and (e), respectively, authorize the court to make an order rescinding or reopening the consumer transaction. As discussed above, there is no basis on which a court could conclude there was a consumer transaction between Mr. Sparkes and the Tobacco Companies. The question of damages, that is, compensation for a loss or injury, arises only after the loss or injury has been established. In the case on appeal, the sole ground on which an economic loss could possibly be found from the facts as pleaded is breach of the statute. Mr. Sparkes’ claim is simply that he bought a product which he alleges was advertised in a manner that contravenes section 5(1) of the Trade Practices Act. The facts as pleaded provide no other basis on which a court could conclude that Mr. Sparkes suffered a loss or injury, an essential element of a claim in negligence. The applications judge did not err in concluding that the sole foundation for Mr. Sparkes’ claim is the nominate tort of statutory breach. Such an action is precluded in law. "
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.
Buyers of light cigarettes sought class action status in a lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco Canada. The claim alleged that the tobacco company’s advertising attempted to deceive the public into thinking that “light” and “mild” cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes in violation of a consumer protection law. A Canadian court of appeal affirmed an earlier decision ruling that class action status could not be granted because the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. Because the plaintiffs relied on the tobacco advertising but did not purchase cigarettes directly from the tobacco company, they did not have a direct relationship with the tobacco company and, therefore, were not eligible to sue the company under the law.