The government of Saskatchewan sued a number of tobacco companies seeking to recover the health care costs of treating citizens with tobacco-related disease. The government alleged that the tobacco companies engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to mislead Saskatchewan about the health risks of smoking and to suppress information about the dangers of smoking. Three of the tobacco companies sought to dismiss the claim, arguing that the court did not have sufficient jurisdiction over them. The court rejected the tobacco companies’ argument and allowed the claim to proceed. The court found that there was enough evidence to show a real and substantial connection between Saskatchewan and the tobacco companies.
Governments or insurance agencies may seek reimbursement from the tobacco companies for health care costs related to tobacco. The most famous example is the case brought by individual states in the U.S.A. that resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement.
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
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.
"Given the breadth of the claim and the fact that the alleged conspiracy is said to have started in 1953, it might be difficult for any given affidavit to address all the material issues. However, in short and in sum, the material filed by the JCDs is insufficient to rebut the presumption set out in the Crown’s claim that there is a plausible causal connection between them and Saskatchewan. In reaching that conclusion I am aided by the reasons set out in the plaintiff’s brief at paras. 38-42:
38. ... the claim discloses material facts that form a factual foundation for the allegations against each of the Jurisdiction Challenging Defendants. In particular:
(a) Each of the Jurisdiction Challenging Defendants is alleged to be a Manufacturer as defined in The Recovery Act. Each is alleged, through a variety of particularized means, to have exerted control and direction over the Canadian operating company in its Group and that control and direction is alleged to have extended to the manufacture and promotion of their cigarettes.
(b) The control and direction by each of the Jurisdiction Challenging Defendants over the Canadian operating company in its Group has involved the implementation of the Group’s position and policies on smoking and exposure to cigarette smoke and health, as particularized in the claim. Each of the Jurisdiction Challenging Defendants, as Lead Companies of their respective Groups, has communicated and directed these policies on smoking and exposure to cigarette smoke and health for the Canadian operating company in its Group by a variety of particularized means.
(b)[sic] Each of the Canadian operating companies or their predecessors was a founding member of the CTMC and CTMC itself was an allied member of ICOSI
(c) Each of the Jurisdiction Challenging Defendants, by reason of these pleaded facts, is alleged to be jointly liable with and vicariously liable for the tobacco-related wrongs of the Canadian operating company in their respective tobacco Group. The Province has also alleged that each of the Canadian operating entitles acted as agent for one or more of the Jurisdiction Challenging Defendants, as set out in the claim, in committing tobacco-related wrongs in Canada."
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 government of Saskatchewan sued a number of tobacco companies seeking to recover the health care costs of treating citizens with tobacco-related disease. The government alleged that the tobacco companies engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to mislead Saskatchewan about the health risks of smoking and to suppress information about the dangers of smoking. Three of the tobacco companies sought to dismiss the claim, arguing that the court did not have sufficient jurisdiction over them. The court rejected the tobacco companies’ argument and allowed the claim to proceed. The court found that there was enough evidence to show a real and substantial connection between Saskatchewan and the tobacco companies.