Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited

Buyers of light cigarettes sought class action status in a lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco Canada. The lawsuit 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. The plaintiffs sought return of the profits made by the tobacco company. The court refused to certify the class action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action because they did not show that they suffered damages as a result of the company’s alleged unfair trade practices. The court also found that the proposed class was too broad, there were too many issues that required proof on an individual level vs. on a group level, and there was not a workable litigation plan.

Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2008 NLTD 207 (2008).

  • Canada
  • Dec 29, 2008
  • Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division

Parties

Plaintiff Victor Todd Sparkes

Defendant

  • Attorney General of Canada
  • British American Tobacco (Invesments) Limited
  • Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited

Legislation Cited

Class Actions Act of Newfoundland and Labrador

Trade Practices Act of Newfoundland and Labrador

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The putative class proposed by the Plaintiff, i.e., anyone who purchased the Defendants’ products in the province in the class period, would include persons who had smoked “light” or “mild” cigarettes for a long time and those who had never smoked them or any other cigarettes, either before or after the purchase of them. It would include people who had relied in some way on the Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and those who did not. It would include those who suffered damages and those who did not."
"That legislation allows for two types of action; one, where an action may be brought by a person who has suffered damages as a result of an unfair trade practice and, another, by the Director or a person who has no connection to such a consumer transaction (see sections 171(1) and 172(1) of the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, B.C. 2004, c. 2). Similar provisions prevailed under the provisions of the British Columbia Trade Practices Act, R.S.B.C., c. 457, section 18(1) and 22(1). The TPA creates a single cause of action by a consumer under section 14(1) which may lead to various remedies under section 14(2). But in that action, the plaintiff must allege that he suffered damages as a result of an unfair trade practice committed by “the” supplier, i.e., the defendant with whom he entered into a consumer transaction. The TPA also allows for a Director’s action in section 15 by which the Director of Trade Practices may commence an action against “a” supplier who has, in his opinion, “engaged” in an unfair trade practice. The Director may seek the remedies available under section 14. There are no issues of a consumer transaction, individual reliance, damages or privity of contract. In my view, the Plaintiff is attempting to pursue a Director’s action under the guise of an individual action which is not permissible under the legislation."