Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., (1983) 47 N.R. 191 (SCC)

JudgeLaskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Estey, McIntyre and Wilson, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateApril 26, 1983
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1983), 47 N.R. 191 (SCC);[1983] SCJ No 33 (QL);1983 CanLII 23 (SCC);47 NR 191;[1983] CarswellBC 812;72 CPR (2d) 1;[1983] 6 WWR 385;21 BLR 254;24 CCLT 111;19 ACWS (2d) 352;[1983] 1 SCR 452;[1983] ACS no 33;145 DLR (3d) 385

Can. Cement v. Lightweight Aggregate (1983), 47 N.R. 191 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd./Ciments Canada LaFarge Ltée, LaFarge Canada Ltd., LaFarge Concrete Ltd./LaFarge Beton Ltée, and Deeks-LaFarge Ltd. (the "LaFarge Group") and Ocean Construction Supplies Limited, Construction Aggregates Ltd., and Metro Concrete Ltd. (the "Ocean Group") v. British Columbia Lightweight Ltd. and Rockcrete Ready-Mix Ltd., Deeks Sand & Gravel Co. Ltd., Holdings Ltd., Deeks Concrete Brick Ltd., Deeks Block Ltd., Lorraine Ltd., T.G. & Co. Ltd., Island Ready-Mix Ltd., Holmes & Wilson Limited, Holmes & Wilson Trucking Company Limited, Fraser Valley Concrete Products Ltd., Butler-LaFarge Ltd., Friday Harbor Sand & Gravel Co., Evans Coleman & Gilley Brothers Limited, Ocean Cement Limited, Ocean Cement & Supplies Ltd., Ocean Construction Supplies Northern Limited, Ocean Construction Supplies (Victoria) Limited, Ocean Cement Trading Limited, Pacific Brick & Block Limited, British Columbia Cement Company Limited, Genstar Limited/Genstar Limitée, Metro Concrete Western Ltd., Inland Cement Industries Limited, Con-Force Products Ltd.; British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. v. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd., et al.

Indexed As: Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Estey, McIntyre and Wilson, JJ.

April 26, 1983.

Summary:

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. and Ocean Construction Supplies Limited illegally combined to control the concrete industry in British Columbia. Knowing this, British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., a manufacturer of "Saturnalite", a lightweight aggregate for use in concrete, reached an agreement with Canada Cement and Ocean Construction that it be the sole supplier of lightweight aggregate in British Columbia. In return, B.C. Lightweight Aggregate agreed not to produce concrete blocks. The agreement and renewals ran until 1970, when they were not renewed. Thereafter, Ocean and Canada Cement began to use pumice from Seattle, a natural and cheaper lightweight aggregate than Saturnalite. As a result, B.C. Lightweight Aggregate's business declined and its plant closed in 1974. B.C. Lightweight Aggregate brought an action against Canada Cement and Ocean Construction for damages for conspiracy to injure. The British Columbia Supreme Court in a judgment reported 103 D.L.R.(3rd) 587, allowed the action and awarded $750,000 damages. The defendants appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1981] 4 W.W.R. 385; 123 D.L.R.(3rd) 66, dismissed the appeal. The defendants appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed the action. The court discussed the elements of liability for the tort of conspiracy to injure. The court held that, where the defendants use lawful means to injure the plaintiff, the predominant purpose of the defendants' conduct must be to cause the injury to the plaintiff for an action to lie. The court held that, where the conduct of the defendants is unlawful (such as the defendants' admitted breach of the Combines Investigation Act in this case), the conduct must be directed towards the plaintiff for an action to lie. The court held that the defendants' unlawful conduct was not directed at the plaintiff. The court found further that the defendants' illegal combination to control the concrete industry did not cause the plaintiffs' demise, but their lawful use of pumice instead of the plaintiffs' lightweight aggregate did.

Actions - Topic 1704

Cause of action - Bars - Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - No disgraceful matter can found an action - The plaintiff obtained an agreement to be the sole supplier of lightweight aggregate to two groups of companies, which the plaintiff knew had illegally combined to control the British Columbia concrete market - The plaintiff's business subsequently failed anyway and the plaintiff brought an action for damages against the groups for conspiracy to injure - The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff's action was barred, because of its participation in the scheme - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff's action was not barred because its participation was not a cause of its failure - See paragraphs 39 to 41.

Actions - Topic 1706

Cause of action - Bars - In pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis - In a case of equal or mutual fault the condition of the party in possession is better or where the fault is mutual, the law leaves the case where it is - The plaintiff obtained an agreement to be the sole supplier of lightweight aggregate to two groups of companies, which the plaintiff knew had illegally combined to control the British Columbia concrete market - The plaintiff's business subsequently failed anyway and the plaintiff brought an action for damages against the groups for conspiracy to injure - The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff's action was barred, because of its participation in the scheme - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiff's action was not barred because its participation was not a cause of its failure - See paragraphs 39 to 41.

Damages - Topic 526

Limits of compensatory damages - Remoteness - Torts - General - The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for damages for conspiracy to injure - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the action on the ground inter alia that there was no causal connection between the unlawful activities of the defendants and the business injury to the plaintiff - See paragraphs 36 to 38.

Torts - Topic 5086

Interference with economic relations - Conspiracy - Conspiracy to injure - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the elements of liability for the anomalous tort of conspiracy to injure - The court held that, where the defendants' activities are lawful, the predominant purpose of their conduct must be to cause injury to the plaintiff before an action will lie for damages for actual injury - The court held that, where the defendants conduct is unlawful, such as an illegal combine, the conduct must be directed toward the plaintiff and the defendant should know in the circumstances that injury to the plaintiff is likely to and does result before an action will lie - See paragraphs 20 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Lornho Limited and others v. Shell Petroleum Company Limited and others, [1982] A.C. 173, appld. [para. 21].

Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. v. Veitch, [1942] A.C. 435, appld. [para. 23].

Sorrell v. Smith, [1925] A.C. 700, appld. [para. 23].

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Therien, [1960] S.C.R. 265, consd. [para. 27].

Gagnon et al. v. Foundation Maritime Limited, [1961] S.C.R. 435, consd. [para. 27].

Southam Co. Ltd. v. Gouthro et al., [1948] 3 D.L.R. 178 (B.C.S.C.), appld. [para. 39].

National Coal Board v. England, [1954] A.C. 403, consd. [para. 39].

Tallow et al. v. Tailfeathers et al. (1974), 44 D.L.R.(3d) 55 (Alta C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

Tomlinson v. Harrison et al. [1972] O.R. 670; 24 D.L.R.(3d)(Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 39].

Rondos v. Wawrin et al. (1968), 68 D.L.R.(2d) 658 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 32.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Burns, Peter, The Tort of Conspiracy, 16 U.B.C. L. Rev. 229 [para. 26].

Civil Conspiracy, L.S.U.C. Special Lectures, 1973, p. 502 [para. 25].

Cronkite, Effect of Violation of a Statute by the Plaintiff in a Tort Action (1929), 7 Can. Bar Rev. 67 [para. 40].

Fleming, The Law of Torts (5th Ed.), pp. 24, 33 [para. 20].

Fridman, The Wrongdoing Plaintiff (1972), 18 McGill L.J., 275 [para. 40].

Gibson, Dale, Article on the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (1969), 47 Can. Bar Rev. 89 [para. 40].

Salmond on Torts (17th Ed. 1977), pp. 377 [para. 20]; 379 [para. 24].

Counsel:

R.J. Gibbs, Q.C., and D.F. Robinson, for the appellants the LaFarge group;

J. Edgar Sexton, Q.C., Brian G. Morgan, and G.A. Urquhart, for the appellants the Ocean group. Rees Brock, Q.C., and Vince Orchard, for the respondent.

This case was heard on November 29 and 30, 1982, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., RITCHIE, ESTEY, McINTYRE and WILSON, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 26, 1983, ESTEY, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada:

To continue reading

Request your trial
587 practice notes
  • Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd., (2015) 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 14, 2015
    ...183 A.R. 5 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 377]. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas et al. (2011), 278 O.A.C. 363; 2011 ONCA 460, refd to. [para. 395]. ......
  • Coughlan et al. v. Westminer Canada Ltd. et al., (1994) 127 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • January 18, 1994
    ...the English cases and the decision of Estey, J., in Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. , [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, and acknowledged that Canadian jurisprudence, though noting the English approach, has resulted in the law governing the tort of c......
  • Eaton et al. v. HMS Financial Inc. et al., (2008) 458 A.R. 282 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 9, 2008
    ...140 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 104]. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. Kiriri Cotton Co. v. Dewani, [1960] 1 All E.R. 177, refd to. [para. 104]. Ontario Securities Commission v. British......
  • Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2020 ONSC 1646
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • April 14, 2020
    ...385 (C.A.); Hunt v. T & N plc, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452. [41] Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas 2011 ONCA 460 at para. 28; Bank of Montreal v. Tortora, [2010] B.C.J. No. 466 (C.A.). [42] ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
503 cases
  • Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd., (2015) 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 14, 2015
    ...183 A.R. 5 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 377]. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas et al. (2011), 278 O.A.C. 363; 2011 ONCA 460, refd to. [para. 395]. ......
  • Coughlan et al. v. Westminer Canada Ltd. et al., (1994) 127 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • January 18, 1994
    ...the English cases and the decision of Estey, J., in Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. , [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, and acknowledged that Canadian jurisprudence, though noting the English approach, has resulted in the law governing the tort of c......
  • Bram Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. A.I. Enterprises Ltd. et al., (2014) 416 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 22, 2013
    ...v. Flood, [1898] A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 31]. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495, refd to. [para. 43]. Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] A.C.......
  • Eaton et al. v. HMS Financial Inc. et al., (2008) 458 A.R. 282 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 9, 2008
    ...140 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 104]. Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. Kiriri Cotton Co. v. Dewani, [1960] 1 All E.R. 177, refd to. [para. 104]. Ontario Securities Commission v. British......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 29 – May 3, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 28, 2019
    ...SCC 44, Angle v. M.N.R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248, Stuart v. Bank of Montreal (1909), 41 S.C.R. 516, LaFarge v. B.C. Lightweight Aggregate, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452, Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 142, Grandview v. Doering, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621, Hoque v. Montreal Trust Co. o......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (November 2 ' November 6, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 11, 2020
    ...to Commit Injury, Request to Adjourn, Ineffective Counsel, Canada Cement Lafarge v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., [1983] 1 SCR 452, Agribands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasameka, 2011 ONCA 0460 Krieser v. Garber, 2020 ONCA 699 Keywords: Torts, Nuisance, Remedies, Mandatory Injunct......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 6, 2022 ' September 9, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • September 12, 2022
    ...Foods Company, 2021 ONCA 95, Paquette v. Cruji, (1979) 26 O.R. (2d) 294 (H.C.J.), Canada Cement Lafarge v. B.C. Lightweight Aggregate, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452, Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas, 2011 ONCA 460, Roach v. Random House of Canada Ltd., [2000] O.J. No. 2585 (Ont. S.C.), Aval......
  • Restrictive Covenants And Non Competes When Selling Or Buying A Business: A Fresh Analysis By The Quebec Court Of Appeal Leads To Anxious Questions
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 28, 2012
    ...discharges but all forms of unilateral resiliation of employment relationships. (See pars. 62-73); 14 Rubis v. Gray Rocks Inc. Ltd., 1982, 1 SCR 452, per Beetz J. at 468-469, citing Migneault J. "...the civil law is a complete system in itself and must be interpreted in accordance with its ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
72 books & journal articles
  • Twenty Years Later: What Are the Risks Faced By Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and How Have These Risks Changed?
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 10-1-2, January 2015
    • January 1, 2015
    ...breaches, were certified.157 145 Microsoft SCC, above note 5 at para 83. 146 Bram, above note 144 at para 2. 147 Ibid at para 45. 148 [1983] 1 SCR 452. 149 [1990] 2 SCR 959. 150 Bram, above note 144 at paras 63–64. 151 Ibid at paras 68–69. 152 Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation......
  • An Overview of Class Actions and Covid-19 in Ontario’s Long-term Care Facilities
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 16-2, March 2021
    • March 1, 2021
    ...in ibid at 59. 134 Chapman & Shedden, above note 127 at 59. 135 Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd v British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd, [1983] 1 SCR 452, [1983] BCWLD 1439 at paras 33–34; see also Reisinger v JC Akin Architect Ltd, 2017 SKCA 11 at para 22. 136 Agribrands Purina Canada Inc v......
  • The Evolution and Devolution of Aggregate Damages as a Common Issue
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 10-1-2, January 2015
    • January 1, 2015
    ...breaches, were certified.157 145 Microsoft SCC, above note 5 at para 83. 146 Bram, above note 144 at para 2. 147 Ibid at para 45. 148 [1983] 1 SCR 452. 149 [1990] 2 SCR 959. 150 Bram, above note 144 at paras 63–64. 151 Ibid at paras 68–69. 152 Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation......
  • Editor-in-chief’s Introduction
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 10-1-2, January 2015
    • January 1, 2015
    ...breaches, were certified.157 145 Microsoft SCC, above note 5 at para 83. 146 Bram, above note 144 at para 2. 147 Ibid at para 45. 148 [1983] 1 SCR 452. 149 [1990] 2 SCR 959. 150 Bram, above note 144 at paras 63–64. 151 Ibid at paras 68–69. 152 Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT