Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:09:54.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Private Law in the Control of Risks Associated with Tobacco Smoking: The Canadian Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2021

Lara Khoury ,
Marie-Eve Couture-Ménard  and
Olga Redko
Lara Khoury
Affiliation:
McGill University, Canada; [email protected]
Marie-Eve Couture-Ménard
Affiliation:
University of Sherbrooke, Canada; McGill University; [email protected]
Olga Redko
Affiliation:
McGill University, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Can private law litigation serve as a tool for advancing public health objectives? With this contentious and oft-asked question in mind, we tackle Canada's recent tobacco litigation. This Article first presents critical commentary regarding various lawsuits waged against Canadian cigarette manufacturers by citizens acting as individuals or as parties to class action lawsuits. We then turn to analyze how Canada's provincial governments rely on targeted legislation to facilitate private law recourses for recouping the healthcare costs of treating tobacco-related diseases. We address challenges to the constitutionality of this type of legislation, as well as attempts by manufacturers to transfer responsibility to the federal government.

Canadian litigation in this field is nothing like that of the United States with regards to both the volume and variety of its individual and class action litigation claims. This is also true with regard to the stage of advancement of governmental claims in Canada. Nevertheless, particularities of the Canadian context may provide interesting contrast with the situation in the United States.

Type
Article
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 39 , Issue 2-3 , June 2013 , pp. 442 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although a private healthcare system exists alongside the public one, the private system is very minimal.

2 Quebec Act of 1774, 14 Geo. III c. 83.

3 See Brouillet, Eugénie, Free Speech, Reputation, and the Canadian Balance, 50 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 33 (2005)Google Scholar.

4 One author has even argued that the typical Canadian procedure that forces losing parties to pay costs acts as a deterrent to tobacco-related lawsuits. Eric LeGresley, Recovering Tobacco-Caused Public Expenditures from the Tobacco Industry: Options for Provincial Governments, NON-SMOKERS’ RIGHTS ASS’N (Mar. 10, 1998), http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/index.cfm?group_id=1300.

5 Some other authors note this tendency. See id.

6 Id.

7 It should also be mentioned that civil trials with juries are now rare in Canada. See generally Bogart, W.A., “Guardian of Civil Rights … Medieval Relic”: The Civil Jury in Canada, 62 L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 305 (1999)Google Scholar, available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=lcp.

8 See Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 (Can.); Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 (Can.); Thornton v. Sch. Dist. No. 57 (Prince George), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267 (Can.) (the “1978 trilogy”).

9 See Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991 c. 64, arts. 1468-69; 1473 (Can.). This regime is inspired by Council Directive 85/374/EEC on products liability. See Council Directive 85/374/EEC, 1985 O.J. (L 210) 29-33 (EC), available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31985L0374:en:HTML.

10 Some cases have not yet made it to final judgment. See Statement of Claim, Spasic v. Imperial Tobacco, Ltd. (1997), C17773/97 (Can. Ont.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/US-CDA-Litigation/Canada%20Litigation/spasic/itl-amended-statement-of-claim.pdf; Statement of Claim, Spasic Estate v. B.A.T. Industries, PLC (1997), C18187/9 (Can. Ont.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/US-CDA-Litigation/Canada%20Litigation/spasic/rnz43a99-statementofclaim.pdf; Statement of Claim, Peter Stright v. Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd. (2002), Halifax 177663 (Can. N.S.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/US-CDA-Litigation/Canada%20Litigation/stright/NovaScotia-PeterStright.pdf.

11 Smith, Stephen E., “Counterblasts” to Tobacco: Five Decades of North American Tobacco Litigation, 14 WINDSOR REV. LEGAL & SOC. ISSUES 1, 26 (2002)Google Scholar; see also Perron v. R.J.R. Macdonald Inc., [1990] 66 D.L.R. 4th 132 (Can. C.A.) (dismissed on a limitation period issue).

12 Other relevant aspects of plaintiffs’ behavior, though not discussed here, include their reliance where fraud or misrepresentation is alleged.

13 See Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-MacDonald Corp., 2006 QCCS 1098, para. 42 (Can.); Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltée, [1998] R.J.Q. 1660, paras. 3-4 (Can. Que. C.Q.).

14 See Létourneau, [1998] R.J.Q. at paras. 3-4 and allegations made by the tobacco industry in Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2005 CanLII 4070, paras. 31-32, 75, 81 (Can. Que. C.S.).

15 A Quebec class action lawsuit is also reported under the same parties’ names. See infra notes 80-81, 84 and accompanying text.

16 Létourneau, [1998] R.J.Q.

17 Id. at paras. 95-105 The court also mentions the plaintiff having assumed the risks of smoking, but this analysis is encompassed into the assessment of the existence of a contractual fault under the Civil Code of Lower-Canada (reformed in 1991). Id. at 65-69.

18 The Court insists that, as a teacher, she had the obligation to be informed about health and public hygiene issues for the benefit of the children with whose care she was entrusted. Id. at para. 88.

19 Id. at para. 97.

20 See U.S. DEP't OF HEALTH, EDUC., & WELFARE, SMOKING AND HEALTH: REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE SURGEON GENERAL OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE (1964), available at http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBMQ.pdf.

21 Létourneau, [1998] R.J.Q. at para. 81.

22 Id. at para. 87.

23 Id. at paras. 91-92.

24 Id. at para. 96.

25 Id. at paras. 96-97.

26 No fault on the part of the manufacturer had been found. Here again, the court uses the language of “acceptation des risques.” Id. at para. 111.

27 Interestingly, in a recent undecided Quebec class action suit, plaintiffs argue that nicotine dependence removed their ability to choose to quit using the product, thereby casting doubt upon whether they have made a conscious, free, and informed choice to smoke. Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2005 CanLII 4070 (Can. Que. C.S.), at paras. 10-14, 79; Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé v. JTI-MacDonald Corp., 2006 QCCS 1098, para. 122 (Can.); see also infra notes 88-84 and accompanying text.

28 Cupp, Richard L., A Morality Play's Third Act: Revisiting Addiction, Fraud and Consumer Choice in ‘Third Wave’ Tobacco Litigation, 46 U. KAN. L. REV. 465 (1997)Google Scholar. Cupp notes that the addictive nature of nicotine was significantly downplayed in the early years of tobacco-related litigation in the United States. See id. at 482-83.

29 See, e.g., Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2002); Allgood v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., 80 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 1996); Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996); Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltée, [1998] R.J.Q. 1660 (Can. Que. C.Q.).

30 See cases cited supra note 29.

31 See, e.g., Létourneau, [1998] R.J.Q.; Caputo v. Imperial Tobacco, [2004] 236 DLR 4th 348 (Can. Ont. S.C.J.).

32 For example, considerations of time of exposure, extent of resultant injury, personal health, medical history, age, and unrelated illnesses all lead to refusal to certify in Caputo. See Caputo, [2004] 236 D.L.R. 4th at paras. 54-55. This was also argued in Conseil. Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, 2006 QCCS at paras. 40, 42 (Can.).

33 See, e.g., Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, 2006 QCCS at para. 42, 47.

34 Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., [2008] 868 A.P.R. 177 (Can. Nfld. & Lab. S.C.) (first instance); Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2010 N.L.C.A. 21 (Can. Nfld. & Lab. C.A.) (appeal).

35 See Sparkes, [2008] 868 A.P.R. at para. 8.

36 Id. at paras. 7-8.

37 Id.; Trade Practices Act (TPA), R.S.N.L. 1990, c. T-7.

38 TPA, s. 14(1); Sparkes. [2008] 868 A.P.R. at paras. 71, 77.

39 TPA, s. 14(2); Sparkes, [2008] 868 A.P.R. at para. 81.

40 Sparkes, [2008] 868 A.P.R. at para. 78.

41 See Sparkes, [2008] 868 A.P.R. 177 at para. 79. See also id. at paras. 60-61 (“Section 7 of the TPA states: A person shall not engage in an unfair trade practice or unconscionable act or practice. Section 20 of the Tobacco Act states: No person shall promote a tobacco product by any means, including by means of the packaging, that are false, misleading or deceptive or that are likely to create an erroneous impression about the characteristics, health effects or health hazards of the tobacco product or its emissions.”).

42 Id. at para. 80.

43 Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205 (Can. S.C.C.). In contrast, the Court of Appeal believes the trial judge in Sparkes was making a determination on these issues. Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2010 N.L.C.A. 21, para. 38 (Can. Nfld. & Lab. C.A.). Given that it confirms the decision of the certification judge on other issues, the Court of Appeal does not discuss this particular issue. Id.

44 Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2010 N.L.C.A. at paras. 85-96.

45 Caputo v. Imperial Tobacco, [2004] 236 D.L.R. 4th 348 (Can. Ont. S.C.J.).

46 According to the court's estimation, which does not include deceased members, former smokers, minors, and those with a Family Law Act claim, including these people could potentially increase the class to 15 million people. Id. at para. 36.

47 Id. at para. 60.

48 Id. at para. 45.

49 Id.

50 Id. at para. 55.

51 Id. at para. 72.

52 Id. The court was also very critical of the plaintiff's litigation plan and attempts at arriving at an acceptable class definition. Id.

53 Ragoonanan v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2011 O.N.S.C. 6187, para. 5 (Can. Ont. S.C.J.).

54 Certification was denied in October 2005, and this decision “was unsuccessfully appealed.” Id. at para. 6. A motion to continue the proceeding on behalf of the original plaintiffs with additional plaintiffs was presented and granted in October 2011 under section 7 of the Class Proceedings Act. Id. at para. 7. In addition, in June 2005, Health Canada passed the Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations, requiring all cigarettes manufactured in or imported to Canada to meet a reduced ignition propensity standard by October 1, 2005. Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations, S.O.R./2005-178 (Can.).

55 Ragoonanan v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., [2005] 78 O.R. 3d 98, para. 52 (Can. Ont. S.C.J.).

56 Id.

57 Id. at para. 60.

58 Id. at para. 68; see also Ragoonanan v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., [2008] 236 O.A.C. 199 (Can. S.C.J. S.C.D.C) (appeal dismissed).

59 Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., [2005] B.C.S.C. 172 (Can. B.C.S.C.). Certification was partially upheld by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in May 2006. See Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., [2006] B.C.C.A. 235 (Can. B.C.C.A.).

60 Knight, [2005] B.C.S.C. at para. 4; Knight, [2006] B.C.C.A. at para. 3.

61 Knight, [2005] B.C.S.C. at paras. 2, 7, 18.

62 Id. at para. 2.

63 Id. at paras. 3, 51.

64 Id. at paras. 35, 51.

65 Id. at para. 22.

66 Id. at paras. 24-25, 29, 33.

67 Id. at paras. 35-36 (Judge Satanove expresses doubts as to the chances of success of this theory but was not prepared to reject it at the

68 Id. at para. 42. certification stage).

69 Id. at paras. 71-72.

70 Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., [2006] B.C.C.A. 235 (Can. B.C.C.A.).

71 Id. at para. 16.

72 Id. at paras. 19, 26. The court, however, reversed the first instance decision on the amenability to certification as a class action of the claims advanced under TPA, s. 1, id. at para. 7, but also judged that certification was possible in any event under s. 172 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA), SBC 2004, c. 2 (Can.). Id. at para. 9.

73 This is terminology used in the province of Quebec.

74 Ashley Post, Trial Underway in Landmark $27 Billion Canadian Tobacco Class Action Lawsuit, INSIDE COUNSEL (Mar. 12, 2012), http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/03/12/trial-underway-in-landmark-27-billion-canadian-tob.

75 Both class action lawsuits were authorized in February 2005. See Kathryn Leger, Strictly Legal: Dozens of Lawyers Busy in Tobacco Suit, GAZETTE (MONTREAL), Mar. 15, 2012, at B6. The first case involves the plaintiff Cecilia Létourneau, who had previously been unsuccessful in obtaining class certification for a suit such as this and who represents a broad class of smokers with nicotine dependence; the second involves Jean-Yves Blais and the Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, suing on behalf of smokers suffering from tobacco-related health problems. Id.

76 Sue Montgomery, Tobacco Titans Finally Go to Trial, GAZETTE (MONTREAL), Mar. 9, 2012, at A7; see also Christine Muschi, Landmark Tobacco Case Begins in Montreal Courtroom, GLOBE & MAIL (Mar. 12, 2012), http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/landmark-tobacco-case-begins-in-montreal-courtroom/article553125.

77 Montgomery, supra note 76; see also Giuseppe Valiante, Tabac: le procès de 27 milliards $ commence aujourd’hui, ARGENT (Mar. 12, 2012), http://argent.canoe.ca/nouvelles/affaires/tabac-le-proces-de-27-milliards-commence-aujourdhui-12032012.

78 Requête introductive d’instance d’un recours collectif, Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltée (2005), No. 500-06-000070-983, para. 1 (Can. Que. C.S.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/US-CDA-Litigation/Canada%20Litigation/Recours%20collectifs%20-%20Qu%C3%A9bec/RequeteIntroductive300905.pdf [hereinafter Létourneau requête 2005]; Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2005 CanLII 4070, paras. 12-16, 20, 24-26 (Can. Que. C.S.).

79 Requête introductive d’instance d’un recours collective, Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-MacDonald Corp. (2005), No. 500-06-000076-980, para. 3 (Can. Q.B. C.S.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/US-CDA-Litigation/Canada%20Litigation/Recours%20collectifs%20-%20Qu%C3%A9bec/Requete-introductive-d-instance.pdf [hereinafter Conseil requête 2005]; Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, 2005 CanLII 4070 at para. 70.

80 Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, 2005 CanLII 4070 at para. 3.

81 Id. at paras. 4, 124.

82 Id.

83 Id. at paras. 3, 122.

84 Létourneau requête 2005, supra note 78, at para. 1.

85 Létourneau requête 2005, supra note 78, at para. 71 (quoting document prepared by JTI-MacDonald).

86 Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-MacDonald Corp., 2006 QCCS 1098, paras. 31-32, 40 (Can.). Similar arguments were also raised, and rejected, in the context of the authorization motion. Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-Macdonald Corp, 2005 CanLII at paras. 81-82, 87, 94.

87 Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, 2006 QCCS at para. 42.

88 Id.

89 Id. at para. 47.

90 Id. at para. 48. She was dealing with preliminary motions following the authorization of the class action by Justice Jasmin in 2005. Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé, 2005 CanLII 4070.

91 Id.

92 Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, art. 1003 (Can.); SHAUN FINN, RECOURS SINGULIER ET COLLECTIF : REDÉFINIR LE RECOURS COLLECTIF COMME PROCÉDURE PARTICULIÈRE 52 (2011).

93 See generally CATHERINE PICHÉ, FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS 43, 67 (2011). Contra 278 Rodney L. Hayley et al., Evidence on Certification/Authorization Motions: est-ce qu’il y a vraiment « deux solitudes »?, in DÉVELOPPEMENTS RÉCENTS EN RECOURS COLLECTIFS 127 (2007).

94 See SMOKING & HEALTH ACTION FOUND. & NON-SMOKERS’ RIGHTS ASS’N, TOBACCO-RELATED LITIGATION IN CANADA 16-18 (2012) [hereinafter SHAF], available at http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/file/files/pdf/Tobacco-related_Litigation_in_Canada_2012.pdf (discussing class action suits currently pending in Canada).

95 See Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1458 (Can.).

96 See id. The nature of these provisions is debated. See JEAN-LOUIS BAUDOUIN & PATRICE DESLAURIERS, LA RESPONSABILITÉ CIVILE para. 2-374. (7th ed., 2007).

97 Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1468 (Can.).

98 Id. at art. 1469

99 See generally Létourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltée, [1998] R.J.Q. 1660 (Can. Que. C.Q.).

100 Id.

101 Crown's Right of Recovery Act, S.A. 2009, c. C-35 (Can.); Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.O. 2009, c. 13 (Can.) [hereinafter Ontario Tobacco Damages]; Tobacco Damages and Health-Care Costs Recovery Act, S.P.E.I. 2007, c. T-3.02 (Can.); Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.S. 2007, c. T-14.2 (Can.); Tobacco Damages and Health Care Cost Recovery Act, C.C.S.M. 2006, c. T-70 (Can.) [hereinafter Manitoba Tobacco Damages]; Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.N.B. 2006, c. T-7.5 (Can.) [hereinafter New Brunswick Tobacco Damages]; Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.N.L. 2001, c T-4.2 (Can.); Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30 (Can.) [hereinafter BC Tobacco Damages]; Tobacco-Related Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, R.S.Q. 2009, c. R-2.2.0.0.1 (Can.) [hereinafter Quebec Tobacco Damages]; Tobacco Damages and Health-care Costs Recovery Act, S.N.S. 2005, c. 46 (Can.) (not yet in force); Tobacco Damages and Health Care Cost Recovery Act, S.Nu. 2010, c. 31 (Can.) (not yet in force); Bill 23, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 6th Sess., 16th Assembly, N.W.T., 2011(Can.).

102 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(1); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(1).

103 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(2); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(1); see Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 9 para. 2.

104 SHAF, supra note 94, at 9.

105 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, s. 2(3), s. 9; BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(3).

106 See BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101. The British Columbia Act came into force via regulation in January 2001. See Provisions in Force, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, http://www.leg.bc.ca/PROCS/proc2000/pr2000_t.htm (last updated Jan. 25, 2001). In 2005, after substantial litigation, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, confirmed the constitutional validity of this Act. See generally British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473 (Can.).

107 See Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101. The Ontario Act received Royal Assent on May 14, 2009. See Bill 155, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONT., http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2159&detailPage=bills_detail_status (last visited Apr. 12, 2013).

108 See Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101. The Quebec Statute was passed in June 2009 and contained a deadline forcing the action to be filed before June 19, 2012. Id. at s. 27.

109 Shelley, Jacob J., The Crown's Rights of Recovery Act, 18 HEALTH L. REV. 15, 17 (2010) (Can.)Google Scholar.

110 Id.

111 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(1); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(1).

112 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 1(1); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 1(1).

113 Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at ss. 1, 9.

114 Id. at s. 9.

115 See Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 1468-69. The Civil Code of Quebec states that codal provisions dealing with the law of obligations apply to the State and its bodies. Id. at art. 1376.

116 Id. at art. 1468.

117 Id. at art. 1469.

118 Id. at arts. 1468-69.

119 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 1(1)(b); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 1(1)(a-b); see also Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 8 (definition of tobacco-related healthcare).

120 Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 10. Section 11 details the type of costs that are targeted. Id. at s. 11.

121 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(4); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(4); Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 12 (“Particular recipients of health care”).

122 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(4); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(4); Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 12.

123 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(4). Tobacco product and type of tobacco product are defined in Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 1, BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 1, and Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 12 para. 2.

124 BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(1)(b).

125 Id. at s. 2(5); Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2; see also Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 13.

126 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(1)(b) (emphasis added); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(1)(b) (emphasis added). Similar language is used in Quebec. See Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at ss. 8, 16(2).

127 Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 16(2) (emphasis added).

128 Id.; Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(1)(b); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(1)(b)

129 See Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 (Can.); Resurfice v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 (Can.); Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 SCR 458 (Can.).

130 See Resurfice, 2007 SCC 7; Clements, 2012 SCC 32.

131 Quebec courts tends to adopt the adequate causation test, which admits as causes any factor contributing to the injury as long as it is known to cause it “in the normal course of events”. BAUDOUIN & DESLAURIERS, supra note 96, at paras. 1-611, 2-374.

132 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(2); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(2).

133 See, e.g., Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(2)(a); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(2)(a).

134 Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 17(1).

135 Id.

136 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(2). The wording under the Quebec Act is slightly different although generally with the same impact: the court presumes “that the exposure to the type of tobacco product manufactured by the defendant caused or contributed to the disease or general deterioration of health, or the risk of disease or general deterioration of health, of a number of persons who were exposed to that type of product.” Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 17(2).

137 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(3); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(3); Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 18.

138 See Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(3)(a). The Acts also provide for mechanisms of joint and several liability for defendants who have jointly breached a duty or an obligation that is covered by the statute. See Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 4(1); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 4(1); see Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 20-21.

139 Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 18.

140 Id. at s. 19; Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(4); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(4).

141 See Sindell v. Abbott Lab., 607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980).

142 See, e.g., Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 7(2); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 7(2).

143 See supra note 142.

144 Id.

145 Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 22.

146 Id. at s. 25.

147 See Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830, para. 39, 65-66 (Can.).

148 See Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991 c. 64, art. 1480 (Can.); Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948)

149 Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32, para. 46 (Can.).

150 Id. at paras. 33-39.

151 See Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 7(3); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 7(3); see also Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 23.

152 Ontario Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 5; BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 5.

153 See Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 116, at s. 15 (emphasis added).

154 Laferrière v. Lawson, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 541.

155 Quebec Sues Tobacco Companies for $60B, CBC NEWS (June 8, 2012, 9:07 PM), http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/06/08/quebec-government-files-suit-against-tobacco-manufacturers.html.

156 See SHAF, supra note 94, at 9-10.

157 See id.; Statement of Claim, British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (2001), S010421 (Can. B.C.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/webpages/British%20Columbia.htm.

158 See Statement of Claim, supra note 157, at paras. 49-51.

159 Id.

160 See SHAF, supra note 94, at 8.

161 Id. at 10.

162 See Statement of Claim, Ontario (HMQ) v. Rothmans, Inc. (2009), No. CV-09-38798 (Can. Ont.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/US-CDA-Litigation/Canada%20Litigation/Ontario/DOC002-statementofclaim.pdf.

163 See SHAF, supra note 94, at 8.

164 New Brunswick filed its claim in March 2008. See Statement of Claim, New Brunswick (HMQ) v. Rothamns, Inc. (2008), No. F/C/88/08 (Can. N.B.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/webpages/New%20Brunwick.htm (including allegations of deceit and misrepresentation, failure to warn, promotion of products to children and adolescents, negligent design and manufacture, breach of the Competition Act, and conspiracy). Alberta filed a claim against fourteen tobacco companies on June 8, 2012. Statement of Claim, Alberta (HMQ) v. Altria Grp. (2012), No. 1201-07314 (Can. Alta.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/webpages/Alberta.htm (requesting recovery of at least C$10 billion in expenditures for healthcare provided for injuries caused by tobacco). Alberta also requests an injunction against continued tobacco industry misrepresentations. See id. at para. 144. Alberta alleges the tobacco industry breached common law duties of care and the duty to warn and not to misrepresent, and also engaged in deceptive marketing practices, unfair trading practices, and conspiracy. See id. at paras. 52-136. Prince Edward Island filed its claim in September 2012. Statement of Claim, Prince Edward Island (HMQ) v. Rothmans, Benson, & Hedges, Inc. (2012), No. SI-GS-25019 (Can. P.E.I.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/US-CDA-Litigation/Canada%20Litigation/princeedwardisland/Tobacco-staement%20of%20claim%20PEI.pdf (requesting recovery of healthcare expenditures for injuries caused by tobacco for each fiscal year since 1953). The province claims such injuries were caused by defendant companies’ misrepresentation, failure to warn, promotion of tobacco products to youth, and conspiracy. See id. at paras. 96-188. Newfoundland filed its claim in February 2011. See Statement of Claim, Newfoundland & Labrador (Att’y Gen.) (2008), No. 0826 (Can. Nfld. & Lab.), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/webpages/Newfoundland.htm (alleging breach of duty in design and manufacture, duty to warn, misrepresentation, manufacture and promotion of products to children and adolescents, and conspiracy).

165 Specifically, these lawsuits are in in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. See SHAF, supra note 94, at 11.

166 Requête introductive d’instance d’un recours collectif, Québec (PG) c. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltée (2012), No 500-17-072363-123, para. 1 (Can. Que. C.S), available at http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/francais/ministere/dossiers/tabac/requetePGQ_tabac_8juin2012.pdf.

167 Id. at paras. 488-615.

168 Id. at para. 157.

169 Id. at para. 492 (translation by author) (“Les consommateurs dépendants aux produits du tabac n’ont plus le libre choix de cesser ou de continuer la consommation de ces produits.”).

170 Id. at para. 946.

171 Id. at paras. 950-75.

172 See PHYSICIANS FOR A SMOKE-FREE CANADA, TOBACCO LITIGATION: LESSONS FOR CANADA FROM THE U.S. MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS 56-58 (2007), available at http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/Litigation-Paper2.pdf.

173 See Meagan Fitzpatrick, Top Court Rules Feds Not Liable in Smoking Lawsuits, CBC News (July 29, 2011, 8:46 AM), http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/07/29/pol-scoc-tobacco.html; see also Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.), reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, app. II, no. 5 (Can.); BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at c. 30; Tobacco Damage Recovery Act, S.B.C. 1997, c. 41 (Can.); Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101.

174 Fitzpatrick, supra note 173.

175 See Tobacco Litigation: Canadian Efforts to Hold Tobacco Companies Accountable, PHYSICIANS FOR A SMOKE-FREE CAN., http://www.smoke-free.ca/litigation/ (last visited Mar. 11, 2013) (providing timeline of cases filed).

176 Id.

177 See BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101; Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, S.B.C. 1997, c. 41.

178 See JTI-MacDonald v. British Columbia (Att’y Gen.), [2000] BCSC 312 (Can. B.C. S.C.).

179 BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101.

180 R. v. Imperial Tobacco Can, Ltd., 2003 BSCS 877 (Can. B.C. S.C.); British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2004 BCCA 269 (Can. B.C. C.A.).

181 British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2005 SCC 49 (Can.).

182 See id. at paras. 21-25; see also Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.), reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, app. II, no. 5 (Can.); Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, c.11 (U.K.).

183 British Columbia, 2005 SCC at para. 48.

184 Id. at para. 47

185 Id. at para. 48; see also BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 3(2).

186 British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2004 BCCA 269, para. 80 (Can. B.C. C.A.).

187 See BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 2(5).

188 British Columbia, 2005 SCC at paras. 45-48, 55.

189 Id. at para. 49.

190 Id. at para. 57.

191 The rule of law consists of three core principles: (1) the supremacy of the law over governments and individuals, (2) the creation and maintenance of an order of positive laws, and (3) the regulation by law of the relationship between the state and the individual. Some advocate that the rule of law embraces additional principles, including those invoked by the tobacco companies: prospectivity of the law, equality and generality in the law, and equality between subjects and the Crown. See id. at paras. 58-61.

192 Id. at paras. 69-72.

193 Id.; see also BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101, at s. 10 (“[W]hen brought into force under section 12, a provision of this Act has the retroactive effect necessary to give the provision full effect for all purposes including allowing an action to be brought under section 2(1) arising from a tobacco related wrong, whenever the tobacco related wrong occurred.”).

194 R. v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2003 BCSC 877, paras. 135-36 (Can. B.C. S.C.).

195 Id. at para. 144.

196 Id. at para. 152.

197 British Columbia, 2005 SCC at paras. 64, 69-76.

198 Id. at paras. 71, 76.

199 Lewis, Michael, Up in Smoke, 24 CANADIAN LAWYER 21 (2000)Google Scholar. The criticisms voiced in this article stem from the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision of 2000 regarding the Act of 1997. Id. For criticism following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision regarding the Act of 2000, see Shelley, supra note 109.

200 JTI-MacDonald v. British Columbia (Att’y Gen.), [2000] BCSC 312 (Can. B.C. S.C.).

201 Id. at para. 152.

202 Id. at para. 195.

203 Id. at para. 165.

204 Edinger, Elizabeth, The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act: JTI-MacDonald Corp. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 35 CAN. BUS. L. J. 95, 98 (2001)Google Scholar.

205 Id. at 106.

206 BC Tobacco Damages, supra note 101.

207 R. v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2003 BSCS 877, para. 222, 228 (Can. B.C. S.C.). This time, the trial judge emphasized the locus of “exposure” to a tobacco product, i.e. the root of the harm. Id. at para. 228-29. As Judge Holmes states, “The root of the harm, the exposure, could theoretically occur anywhere in the world given the construction of the Act.” Id. at para. 234.

208 British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2004 BCCA 269 (Can. B.C. C.A.). The court (mainly Judge Lambert) notes section 3(1)(a), newly added to the Act, which refers to a breach of duty “owed to persons in British Columbia,” thereby further confining the locus of the wrong to the Province. Id. at para. 48. The Supreme Court of Canada later indicated that the Court of Appeal put too much emphasis on the question of whether manufacturer breaches of duty must occur in British Columbia for the Act to be valid. See British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2005 SCC 49, para. 39 (Can.).

209 British Columbia, 2005 SCC at paras. 38-41.

210 Id. at paras. 36-37.

211 Id. at para. 37.

212 Id.

213 Quebec Tobacco Damages, supra note 101.

214 Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd. v. Québec (PG), 2010 QCCS 5208, para. 18 (Can. Que. C.S.).

215 The defendants’ allegations are presented succinctly in the judgment and were not debated before the court. See id.

216 Id.

217 Id. at para. 17.

218 Id. at para. 20.

219 Id. at paras. 31-32.

220 Id. at para. 33.

221 Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12 [hereinafter Quebec Charter].

222 COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DE LA JEUNESSE, APRÈS 25 ANS, LA CHARTE QUÉBÉCOISE DES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS 6-8 (2003) [hereinafter CDPJ]; see also ALAIN-ROBERT NADEAU, BARREAU DU QUÉBEC, LA CHARTE QUÉBÉCOISE: ORIGINES, ENJEUX ET PERSPECTIVES 15 (2006).

223 CDPJ, supra note 222, at 7.

224 Quebec Charter, supra note 221, at s. 23.

225 Id. at ss. 6, 24; see also Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2010 QCCS at paras. 17-18.

226 British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2005 SCC 49, paras. 69-72, 76 (Can.).

227 Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2010 QCCS at para 25.

228 Québec (PG) v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2011 QCCA 132 (Can. C.A.).

229 See infra section V.A and accompanying text.

230 Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2007 BCSC 964 (Can. B.C. S.C.); British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2008 BCSC 419 (Can. B.C. S.C.).

231 Knight, 2007 BCSC at para. 9; British Columbia, 2008 BCSC at para. 5.

232 Knight, 2007 BCSC at para. 70; British Columbia, 2008 BCSC at para. 96.

233 See generally Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2009 BCCA 541 (Can.); British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2009 BCCA 540. (Can.)

234 R. v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, para. 151.

235 Id. at paras. 9, 13 (citing Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333). The companies also allege that Canada is itself liable under the statutory schemes at issue in both cases, namely the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (in the provincial claim), and the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the TPA (in the class action). See id. at paras. 9, 13, 117. This line of argument, in which the companies argue that Canada qualifies as a manufacturer and a supplier, is not discussed here. The companies also pleaded that Canada is obliged to indemnify them under the doctrine of equitable indemnity. See id.

236 Id. at paras. 9, 13.

237 Id. at paras. 29-30.

238 Id. at para. 17.

239 See id. at para. 30 (alleged duty of care in the costs recovery case); id. at para. 49 (negligent misrepresentation claims by consumers of low-tar cigarettes); id. at para. 108 (failure to warn claims).

240 Id. at para. 49.

241 Id.

242 Id. at para. 50.

243 Id. at paras. 51-60.

244 Id. at paras. 111-15.

245 Id. at paras. 95, 111.

246 Id. at paras. 62, 95.

247 Id. at paras. 71-72, 90.

248 Id. at para. 90.

249 Id. at para. 95.

250 Id. at paras. 94-95.

251 In dicta, the Supreme Court also found that the prima facie duty of care was also negated because of the danger of indeterminate liability if it was recognized by reason of the fact that Canada has no control over the number of people who smoked light cigarettes and because the claims are for pure economic loss. Id. at paras. 99-100.

252 Id. at paras. 110-11.

253 Id. at paras. 103-06.

254 The third party notices only pleaded negligence in this respect and the Court believed that this plea was insufficient and that failure to warn argument necessitated evidence of the existence of a positive duty towards the plaintiff. Id. at paras. 107-08.

255 Id. at para. 105.

256 Id.

257 Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2007 BCSC 964, para. 9 (Can. B.C. S.C.); NAHUM GABLER & DIANE KATZ, FRASER INST., CONTRABAND TOBACCO IN CANADA: TAX POLICIES AND BLACK MARKET INCENTIVES 10-25 (2010), available at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/contraband-tobacco-in-canada(1).pdf.

258 See cases cited supra note 13.

259 Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2012 QCCS 474, para. 6 (Can. Que. S.C.).

260 Id. at para. 19.

261 Id. at paras. 20-23.

262 Id. at para. 21 (citing Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, ss. 54.1, 165(4) (Can.) and BC Supreme Court Rules, BC Reg 221/90, s. 19(24)(a) (Can.)). In Quebec, the federal government also invoked immunity on the basis of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, an argument that was not examined in British Columbia. Id. at 7. The Quebec case also presented an opportunity for the tobacco companies to invoke a series of new arguments against Canada. See generally Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2012 QCCS 473 (Can. Que. S.C.).

263 Conseil québécois sur le tabac et la santé c. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2012 QCCS 474, para. 26 (Can. Que. S.C.).

264 Id.

265 Canada (Procureur général) c. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., 2012 QCCA 2034 (Can. C.A.).

266 Id. at para. 126.

267 SHAF, supra note 94, at 1.

268 See generally Shelley, supra note 109; Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2007 BCSC 964, para. 9 (Can. B.C. S.C.); GABLER & KATZ, supra note 257, at 10-25.

269 See GABLER & KATZ, supra note 257, at 10, 13; NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR HEALTH BOARDS ASS’N, PROPOSED TOBACCO HEALTH COST RECOVERY LEGISLATION 5, 7 (2001); see also David Sweanor, Tobacco Prices and Taxes in Canada, NON-SMOKERS’ RIGHTS ASS’N (Jan. 27, 2003), http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/index.cfm?group_id=1199 (providing details regarding each province).

270 Berryman, Jeff, Canadian Reflections on the Tobacco Wars: Some Unintended Consequences of Mass Tort Litigation, 53 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 596 (2004)Google Scholar; Shelley, supra note 109, at 5.

271 See, e.g., Tobacco, NAT’L ASS’N OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL, http://www.naag.org/tobacco.php (last visited Mar. 11, 2013).

272 HEALTH CANADA, LOOKING FORWARD: THE FUTURE OF FEDERAL TOBACCO CONTROL 8 (2011), available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/consult/_2011/foward-avenir/consult-eng.php#a6.

273 Id.; Smoking, ALBERTA HEALTH SERVS., http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/2568.asp (last visited Apr. 16, 2013).

274 CANADIAN INST. FOR HEALTH INFO., NATIONAL HEALTH EXPENDITURE TRENDS, 1975 TO 2012, at 2 (2012), available at https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/NHEXTrendsReport2012EN.pdf (forecasting expenditures of $200.6 Billion in 2011 and $207.4 billion in 2012).

275 R. v. Imperial Tobacco Can. Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, para. 129 (Can. S.C.C.)