Chadha v. Bayer Inc. et al., (2001) 147 O.A.C. 223 (DC)

• Judge: O'Driscoll, Somers and Thomson, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: May 14, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 147 O.A.C. 223 (DC);2001 CanLII 28369 (ON SC);2001 CanLII 28369 (NB QB);54 OR (3d) 520;200 DLR (4th) 309;15 BLR (3d) 177;[2001] OJ No 1844 (QL);105 ACWS (3d) 808;147 OAC 223;8 CPC (5th) 138

Chadha v. Bayer Inc. (2001), 147 O.A.C. 223 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.044

Avininder Chadha and Renu Chadha (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Bayer Inc., Bayer Corporation and Harcros Pigments Inc. (defendants) (Bayer Inc. and Bayer Corporation, appellants)

(459/99)

Indexed As: Chadha v. Bayer Inc. et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

O'Driscoll, Somers and Thomson, JJ.

May 14, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fix the price of iron oxide pigments used in various construction materials. Particularly, the plaintiffs asserted that they, and other building owners, sustained damages as a result of the conspiracy. At issue was whether the plaintiffs' action should be certified as a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported 107 O.T.C. 36, granted the application and in supplementary reasons settled the terms of the certification order and the notice terms. The defendants sought leave to appeal the decision.

The Ontario Superior Court, per Lane, J., in a decision reported [1999] O.T.C. 36, allowed the application. The motion involved matters of importance beyond the parties themselves.

The Ontario Divisional Court, O'Driscoll, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and the order certifying the action as a class proceeding was set aside.

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - For damages - In concluding that a proposed class action could not be certified, the Ontario Divisional Court stated that s. 24 of the Class Proceedings Act provided that the aggregate assessment of monetary relief could only be used where: "(a) monetary relief is claimed on behalf of some or all class members; (b) no questions of fact or law other than those relating to the assessment of monetary relief remain to be determined in order to establish the amount of the defendant's monetary liability; and (c) the aggregate or a part of the defendant's liability to some or all class members can reasonably be determined without proof by individual class members" - Because liability could not be a common issue in this case, the respondents could not avail themselves of s. 24 - See paragraphs 104 and 105.

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - General principles - [See second Practice - Topic 209.3 ].

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to fix the price of iron oxide pigments used in various construction materials - Particularly, the plaintiffs asserted that they, and other building owners, sustained damages as a result of the conspiracy - At issue was whether the plaintiffs' action should be certified as a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act - The Ontario Divisional Court reviewed the relevant sections of the Act and held that the action should not be certified as a class proceeding - See paragraphs 49 to 111.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The Ontario Divisional Court noted that the "following factors should be considered when applying s. 5(1)(d) of the [Class Proceedings] Act: the nature of the proposed common issue(s); the individual issues which would remain after determination of the common issue(s); the factors listed in s. 6 of the Act; the complexity and manageability of the proposed action as a whole; alternative procedures for dealing with the claims asserted; the extent to which certification furthers the objectives underlying the Act; and the rights of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s)" - See paragraph 64.

Cases Noticed:

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 12, 60].

Anderson et al. v. Wilson et al. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 69; 44 O.R.(3d) 673 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 258 N.R. 194; 138 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 15, 55].

Lau et al. v. Bayview Landmark Inc. et al., [1999] O.T.C. 220 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Carom et al. v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd. et al. (1999), 98 O.T.C. 1; 44 O.R.(3d) 173 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1999), 46 O.R.(3d) 315 (Div. Ct.), revd. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 55; 51 O.R.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 27, 65].

Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967), 67 Cal.2d 695 (Cal. S.C.), refd to. [paras. 35, 76].

Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. (1931), 282 U.S. 555 (1st Cir., D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 43].

Vitapharm Canada Ltd. et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. et al., [2000] O.T.C. 877 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 46, 92].

Carom et al. v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd. et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 55; 51 O.R.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Robertson v. Thomson Corp. et al. (1999), 43 O.R.(3d) 389 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

Abdool et al. v. Anaheim Management Ltd. et al. (1995), 78 O.A.C. 377; 21 O.R.(3d) 453 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

Bywater v. Toronto Transit Commission (1998), 83 O.T.C. 1; 27 C.P.C.(4th) 172 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 63].

Ontario New Home Warranty Program et al. v. Chevron Chemical Co. et al. (1999), 99 O.T.C. 384; 46 O.R.(3d) 130 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 66].

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. 69].

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977), 431 U.S. 720 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74].

Parsons et al. v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al. (1999), 103 O.T.C. 161; 51 O.R.(3d) 261 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].

Controltech Engineering Inc. v. Ontario Power Generation Inc. et al. (1998), 72 O.T.C. 351 (Gen. Div.), affd. (2000), 130 O.A.C. 367 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

Rosedale Motors Inc. v. Petro-Canada Inc. (1998), 87 O.T.C. 180; 42 O.R.(3d) 776 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 78].

Kansas v. Utilicorp United Inc. (1990), 497 U.S. 199 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

Mouhteros v. Devry Canada Inc. (1998), 70 O.T.C. 138; 41 O.R.(3d) 63 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 81].

Campbell et al. v. Flexwatt Corp. et al. (1997), 98 B.C.A.C. 22; 161 W.A.C. 22; 44 B.C.L.R.(3d) 343 (C.A.), supplementary reasons (1998), 105 B.C.A.C. 158; 171 W.A.C. 158 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 228 N.R. 197; 120 B.C.A.C. 80; 196 W.A.C. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

Tiemstra v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 144; 154 W.A.C. 144; 38 B.C.L.R.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Bittner et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. E73; 43 B.C.L.R.(3d) 324 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Taub v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (1998), 40 O.R.(3d) 379 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1999), 42 O.R.(3d) 576 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 94].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al. (1999), 127 O.A.C. 369; 46 O.R.(3d) 257 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2000), 262 N.R. 395; 144 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

Robertson v. Thomson Corp. et al. (1999), 86 O.T.C. 226; 43 O.R.(3d) 161 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 97].

Cameron v. Taylor (1992), 10 O.R.(3d) 277 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 102].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, sect. 2, sect. 5(1) [para. 3]; sect. 5(5) [para. 58]; sect. 24 [para. 32]; sect. 30(2) [para. 1].

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, sect. 36(1) [para. 68].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Coutroulis, C.S., and Allen, D.M., The Pass-On in Indirect Purchaser Class Litigation (Spring 1999), Antitrust Bulletin 179, generally [paras. 71, 75].

Newberg on Class Actions (3rd Ed. 1992), vol. 2, c. 10, ss. 10-05 [para. 36]; 10-17, 10-43 [para. 33].

Ontario, Attorney General's Advisory Committee Report on Class Action Reform (1990), p. 43 [paras. 40, 106].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission Report on Class Actions (1982), vol. 1, pp. 140 [para. 109]; 143, 144 [para. 22].

Counsel:

J.L. McDougall, Q.C., and Kent E. Thomson, for the appellants/defendants;

Joel P. Rochon, Vincent Genova and Douglas Lennox, for the plaintiffs/respondents.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 15 and 16, 2000, by O'Driscoll, Somers and Thomson, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The decision of the court was delivered on May 14, 2001, and the following opinions were filed:

O'Driscoll, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 48;

Somers, J. (Thomson, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 49 to 111.