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
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.
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.
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 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."
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 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.