Infineon Technologies AG et al. v. Option consommateurs et al., (2013) 450 N.R. 355 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: October 17, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 450 N.R. 355 (SCC);2013 SCC 59

Infineon Tech. v. Option consommateurs (2013), 450 N.R. 355 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.R. TBEd. OC.029

Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (appellants) v. Option consommateurs and Claudette Cloutier (respondents) and Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers (intervener)

(34617; 2013 SCC 59; 2013 CSC 59)

Indexed As: Infineon Technologies AG et al. v. Option consommateurs et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

October 31, 2013.

Summary:

The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices. The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec. It alleged that the appellants failed to discharge statutory obligations under the Competition Act and that their conduct amounted to a fault giving rise to civil liability under the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.). Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class. The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec. In its motion for authorization of the class action, Option consommateurs designated the respondent, Cloutier, as a member of the group. Cloutier was a Montreal resident who purchased a personal computer containing DRAM from Dell Computer Corp. She made the purchase from her home by credit card on Dell's website.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision with neutral citation 2008 QCCS 2781, dismissed the motion for authorization to institute a class action. The court held that the Superior Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the class action. The court also held that Option consommateurs and Cloutier had not met all the conditions set out in art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) for authorizing a class action. Option consommateurs appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision with neutral citation 2011 QCCA 2116, overturned the Superior Court's judgment and authorized the class action. The court found that the Quebec courts had jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to art. 3148(3) of the C.C.Q. and that the motion satisfied the requirements for authorization of a class action set out in art. 1003 of the C.C.P. The appellants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: This case was heard together with Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., reported at 450 N.R. 201, and Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland et al., reported at 450 N.R. 287.

Damages - Topic 510

Limits of compensatory damages - General - Prohibition against double recovery - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2124 ].

Practice - Topic 208.4

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Aggregate damages - [See fourth Quebec Procedure - Topic 9029 ].

Practice - Topic 209.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Members of class - General - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 9028 ].

Practice - Topic 209.4

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Appointment or replacement of representative plaintiff - [See both Quebec Procedure - Topic 9031 ].

Practice - Topic 209.7

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Evidence and proof - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 9027 ].

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9040

Conflict of laws - International jurisdiction of Quebec authorities - Personal actions of a patrimonial nature - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs designated the respondent, Cloutier, as a member of the group - Cloutier, a Montreal resident, had purchased a personal computer containing DRAM from Dell Computer Corp. - She made the purchase from her home by credit card on Dell's website - At issue was whether the Quebec courts had jurisdiction over this dispute between international DRAM manufacturers and a group consisting of direct and indirect purchasers located in Quebec given that the alleged conspiracy to reduce competition and inflate the price of DRAM occurred outside Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Quebec courts had jurisdiction over this matter under art. 3148 of the Civil Code of Quebec - Article 3148(3) conferred jurisdiction on a Quebec authority in a personal action of a patrimonial nature where "a fault was committed in Québec, damage was suffered in Québec, an injurious act occurred in Québec or one of the obligations arising from a contract was to be performed in Québec" - The contract between Cloutier and Dell for the sale of a computer was a "remote-parties contract" within the meaning of the former ss. 20 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) - As such, it was deemed to be entered into at the consumer's address - In sum, Cloutier, a Quebec resident, suffered economic damage in Quebec as a result of a contract entered into in that province - See paragraphs 41 to 56.

Quebec Obligations - Topic 604

Formation of contracts - Consent, offer and acceptance - Place where contract made - [See Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9040 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9005

Class action - General - Evidence - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 9027 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9027

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Conditions precedent - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the requirements for authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - The court stated that "... the authorization process does not amount to a trial on the merits. It is a filtering mechanism. The applicant does not have to show that his claim will probably succeed. Also, the requirement that the applicant demonstrate a 'good colour of right', an 'apparence sérieuse de droit', or a 'prima facie case' implies that although the claim may in fact ultimately fail, the action should be allowed to proceed if the applicant has an arguable case in light of the facts and the applicable law. ... At the authorization stage, the facts alleged in the applicant's motion are assumed to be true. The applicant's burden at this stage is to establish an arguable case, although the factual allegations cannot be [Translation] 'vague, general [or] imprecise' ... Any review of the merits of the case should properly be left for the trial, at which time the appropriate procedures can be followed to adduce evidence and weigh it on the standard of the balance of probabilities" - See paragraphs 65 to 68.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9028

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Similarity of questions of law or fact - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - At issue was whether the respondent met the requirements for authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - Article 1003(a) required that "the recourses of the members raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact" - The appellants argued that given the range of products containing DRAM, the large number of distribution chains, the inherent differences between the direct and indirect purchasers, and the nature of the aggregate claim, it would be impossible to establish an injury or a causal connection on a group-wide basis - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that " ... even a single identical, similar or related question of law would be sufficient to meet the common questions requirement set out in art. 1003(a), provided that it is significant enough to affect the outcome of the class action. There is no requirement that each member of a group be in an identical or even a similar position in relation to the defendant or to the injury suffered. ... All the members, regardless of their individual circumstances, have a common interest both in proving the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy and in maximizing the amount of the resulting unlawful overcharge. Any disparity between the direct purchasers' relationships with the appellants and those of the indirect purchasers does not alter the fact that they have a collective interest in these questions of fault and liability" - The respondent met the requirement that there be sufficient common questions - See paragraphs 70 to 75.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9029

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought (art. 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.)) - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - At issue was whether the respondent met the requirements for authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - Article 1003(b) required that "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought" - The proposed class action was rooted in the alleged extracontractual liability of the appellants under art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Option consommateurs met the threshold requirement of art. 1003(b) of the C.C.P. by making out an arguable case in support of its claim of the appellants' extracontractual liability - See paragraphs 76 to 79.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9029

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought (art. 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.)) - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - At issue was whether the respondent met the threshold requirements for authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - Article 1003(b) required that "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought" - The proposed class action was rooted in the alleged extracontractual liability of the appellants under art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec (C.C.Q.) - The first requirement to meet in order to successfully establish extracontractual liability under art. 1457 of the C.C.Q. was that of fault - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the respondent's allegations were sufficient to support an inference of fault, given the relatively low standard to be met at the authorization stage - The applicable standard was that of showing an arguable case, not proof on a balance of probabilities - Although the respondent's allegations and supporting documentation did not explicitly establish the commission of wrongful behaviour in Quebec, they pointed to the international nature of the conspiracy to fix the price of DRAM and to the suffering of damage outside the United States - The bare allegation of undue economic impact set out in the motion for authorization, combined with the exhibits demonstrating the impact of conduct in the U.S. on prices of DRAM in the international market, gave rise to an inference of an impact on the Canadian market that satisfied the low threshold requirement of an arguable case - Further, the respondent did not need to prove liability under s. 45 of the Competition Act at this stage - Its action was rooted in art. 1457 of the C.C.Q., not s. 45 of the Competition Act - Its claim of undue economic impact under s. 45 was relevant only to the extent that a violation of the statutory scheme could give rise to extracontractual liability under art. 1457 of the C.C.Q. - See paragraphs 80 to 100.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9029

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought (art. 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.)) - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - At issue was whether the respondent met the threshold requirements for authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - Article 1003(b) required that "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought" - The proposed class action was rooted in the alleged extracontractual liability of the appellants under art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec - The motion for authorization had to demonstrate an arguable case that the members of the proposed group suffered a loss as a result of the appellants' anti-competitive conduct - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "These allegations by the respondent raise two distinct issues with regard to the demonstration of injury. First, since the respondent has included the indirect purchasers in the proposed group, the question arises as to whether a cause of action can be rooted in the passing on of artificially inflated prices resulting from anti-competitive practices. Second, the Court must determine whether the respondent has discharged the burden of demonstrating that each member of the group suffered an injury in light of the complexity of the distribution channels. This second issue requires the Court to inquire into whether it is sufficient to prove an aggregate loss at this stage of the proceedings. The Court must also consider the nature of the respondent's evidentiary burden with regard to any methodology advanced to prove the effects of the alleged misconduct. In other words, to what extent must the respondent prove at the authorization stage that the direct purchasers suffered and retained a portion of the loss and that a portion of the loss was passed on to the indirect purchasers? In our opinion, passing on can result in a finding of a compensable injury in an action for extracontractual damages. ... the respondent has discharged its evidentiary burden in respect of the loss resulting from the alleged passing on of the price increases caused by the appellants' anti-competitive conduct" - See paragraphs 101 to 106.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9029

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought (art. 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.)) - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - At issue was whether the respondent met the threshold requirements for authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - Article 1003(b) required that "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought" - The appellants argued that the respondent had not demonstrated that the loss was passed on to the indirect purchasers - The appellants submitted that by alleging an aggregate loss, the respondent failed to discharge the burden of showing prima facie that all members of the group had suffered an injury - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the respondent met the requirements of art. 1003(b) of C.C.P. - The threshold requirement for art. 1003 was that the applicants present an arguable case that an injury was suffered - It was not necessary at this preliminary stage to prove that each member of the group suffered a loss - On the facts of this case, the aggregate loss alleged by the respondent was sufficient to demonstrate an injury in accordance with the evidentiary standard applicable at the authorization stage - See paragraphs 121 to 139.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9029

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought (art. 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.)) - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - At issue was whether the respondent met the threshold requirements for authorization of a class action under art. 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - Article 1003(b) required that "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought" - The proposed class action was rooted in the alleged extracontractual liability of the appellants under art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec (C.C.Q.) - To establish causation under art. 1457 of the C.C.Q., it was necessary to show that the injury suffered was an immediate and direct consequence of the fault (C.C.Q., art. 1607) - The appellants argued that any losses suffered by indirect purchasers failed to meet this requirement of directness, because the alleged injury was an "indirect damage" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the appellants failed to make an important distinction between indirect damage and the "indirect victim" - The damage had to be shown to be a direct consequence of the injurious act, but the plaintiff need not be the immediate victim of that act in order to recover - Although the indirect purchasers might be indirect victims, the injury they allegedly suffered was a direct result of the appellants' anti-competitive conduct - The demonstration of causation was sufficient to meet the requirements of the authorization stage - See paragraphs 140 to 145.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9031

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Representative member in a position to represent the members adequately - The appellants were manufacturers of the dynamic random-access memory chip (DRAM), which was used in a wide range of electronic devices - The respondent, Option consommateurs, alleged that the appellants conspired to inflate the price of DRAM, which artificially inflated the prices of DRAM and products containing DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellants in order to recover damages on behalf of the members of the affected class - The group was comprised of direct and indirect purchasers who suffered losses by absorbing, in whole or in part, the inflated portion of the price of DRAM sold in Quebec - Option consommateurs designated the respondent, Cloutier, as a member of the group - Cloutier was a Montreal resident who purchased a personal computer containing DRAM from Dell Computer Corp - The appellants argued that Cloutier did not meet the requirements for representing the members of the proposed group under art. 1003(d) of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) - They submitted that there was an inherent conflict of interests between Cloutier, as an indirect purchaser, and the direct purchasers - The appellants also submitted, on the basis of art. 1048 of the C.C.P., that Option consommateurs should not be permitted to represent both the direct and the indirect purchasers, because its mandate of advocating for consumers ran counter to the interests of the direct purchasers - The Supreme Court of Canada saw no conflict between the direct and indirect purchasers at this stage of the proceedings that would bar either Cloutier or Option consommateurs from representing the interests of the class - It would be more appropriate to deal with any actual conflict between the direct and indirect purchasers at subsequent stages of the proceedings, once any aggregate loss had been established - See paragraphs 147 to 154.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9031

Class action - Authorization to institute class action - Representative member in a position to represent the members adequately - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Article 1003(d) of the [Quebec Code of Civil Procedure] C.C.P. provides that 'the member to whom the court intends to ascribe the status of representative [must be] in a position to represent the members adequately'. In Le recours collectif comme voie d'accès à la justice pour les consommateurs (1996), Pierre-Claude Lafond posits that adequate representation requires the consideration of three factors: [Translation] '... interest in the suit ... competence ... and absence of conflict with the group members ...' (p. 419). In determining whether these criteria have been met for the purposes of art. 1003(d), the court should interpret them liberally. No proposed representative should be excluded unless his or her interest or competence is such that the case could not possibly proceed fairly. Even if a conflict of interests can be established, the court should be reluctant to take the extreme action of denying authorization. ... Given that the purpose of the authorization stage is merely to screen out frivolous claims, it follows that the purpose of art. 1003(d) cannot be to deny authorization if there is only a possibility of conflict. This position is supported by the case law, as authorization appears to have been denied under art. 1003(d) on the basis of a conflict of interests only where prospective representative plaintiffs had failed to disclose material facts or were undertaking the legal proceedings purely for personal gain" - See paragraphs 49 to 150.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2124

Damages - Wrongs giving rise to compensation - Loss passed on to plaintiff (offensive use of passing on) - At issue was whether the passing on of price increases could ground a class action where the members of the group included direct purchasers - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The policy considerations that militate against the defence of passing on at common law should favour, in the civil law of Quebec, compensation for a loss that has been passed on to a plaintiff. ... to reject the possibility, in the Quebec law of civil liability, of claiming compensation for a loss that has been passed on would be inconsistent with the twin objectives - deterrence and compensation - of extracontractual liability. To allow for recovery of such a loss would be compatible with those objectives. The risk of double recovery for a single loss should be assessed in light of the facts and circumstances specific to each case, as opposed to being dealt with in the abstract by means of a blanket application of inflexible rules. ... In the instant case, there is no risk of double recovery, since the direct and indirect purchasers would be combined in a single group that would make a single collective claim of an aggregate loss. This case does not involve separate claims, so there is quite simply no risk of multiple liability for a single loss. ... In summary, therefore, passing on can serve as a sword under the civil law of Quebec even though it cannot serve as a shield" - See paragraphs 107 to 117.

Restitution - Topic 696

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Recovery of money - Indirect purchasers (incl. offensive use of passing on) - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2124 ].

Cases Noticed:

Quebecor Printing Memphis Inc. v. Regenair Inc., [2001] R.J.Q. 966 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Banque de Montréal v. Hydro Aluminum Wells Inc., 2004 CanLII 12052 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Thompson v. Masson, [1993] R.J.Q. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Capital Factors Inc., [2004] Q.J. No. 11841 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 205; 297 N.R. 83; 2002 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 45].

Sterling Combustion inc. v. Roco Industrie inc., 2005 QCCA 662, refd to. [para. 45].

Option consommateurs v. British Airways PLC, 2010 QCCS 140, refd to. [para. 45].

Marcotte et al. v. Longueuil (Ville), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 65; 394 N.R. 1; 2009 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 60].

Nault v. Canadian Consumer Co., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 553; 38 N.R. 205, refd to. [para. 60].

Comité régional des usagers des transports en commun de Québec v. Commission des transports de la Communauté urbaine de Québec, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 424; 37 N.R. 608, refd to. [para. 60].

Comité d'environnement de La Baie Inc. v. Société d'électrolyse et de chimie Alcan Ltée, [1990] R.J.Q. 655 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Château v. Placements Germarich Inc., [1990] R.D.J. 625 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Tremaine v. A.H. Robins Canada Inc., [1990] R.D.J. 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Nadon v. Ville d'Anjou, [1994] R.J.Q. 1823 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Pharmascience Inc. v. Option Consommateurs, 2005 QCCA 437, refd to. [para. 61].

Martin v. Telus Communications Co., 2010 QCCA 2376, refd to. [para. 61].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 63].

Berdah v. Nolisair International Inc., [1991] R.D.J. 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Breslaw v. Montreal (City), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 131; 394 N.R. 184; 2009 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 64].

Option Consommateurs v. Novopharm Ltd., 2008 QCCA 949, refd to. [para. 64].

Harmegnies v. Toyota Canada inc., 2008 QCCA 380, dist. [para. 67].

Collectif de défense des droits de la Montérégie (CDDM) v. Centre hospitalier régional du Suroît du Centre de santé et de services sociaux du Suroît, 2011 QCCA 826, refd to. [para. 72].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 73].

Guilbert v. Vacances sans Frontière Ltée, [1991] R.D.J. 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 88].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 201; 2013 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 108].

Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 287; 2013 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 108].

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. (1968), 392 U.S. 481, refd to. [para. 109].

British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 74; 321 N.R. 1; 198 B.C.A.C. 1; 324 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 109].

Kingstreet Investments Ltd. et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 3; 355 N.R. 336; 309 N.B.R.(2d) 255; 799 A.P.R. 255; 2007 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 109].

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977), 431 U.S. 720, refd to. [para. 110].

Regroupement des citoyens contre la pollution v. Alex Couture inc., 2007 QCCA 565, refd to. [para. 119].

Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214; 412 N.R. 1; 2011 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 123].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 128].

Hubert v. Merck & Co. Inc., 2007 QCCS 3291, refd to. [para. 143].

Croteau v. Air Transat A.T. inc., 2007 QCCA 737, refd to. [para. 150].

Bouchard v. Agropur Coopérative, 2006 QCCA 1342, refd to. [para. 150].

Black v. Place Bonaventure inc. (2004), 41 C.C.P.B. 181 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 150].

Comité syndical national de retraite Bâtirente inc. v. Société financière Manuvie, 2011 QCCS 3446, refd to. [para. 150].

Bourgoin v. Bell Canada inc., 2007 QCCS 6087, refd to. [para. 150].

Rosso v. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2006 QCCS 5271, refd to. [para. 150].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1457 [para. 77]; art. 1607 [para. 140]; art. 3148(3) [para. 43].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, art. 1003 [para. 57]; art. 1048 [para. 152].

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, sect. 39 [para. 19]; sect. 45 [para. 30].

Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P-40.1, sect. 20, sect. 21 [para. 49].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, and Deslauriers, Patrice, La responsibilité civile (7th Ed. 2007), vol. I, Nos. 1-188 [para. 96]; 1-189 [para. 97]; 1-327 [para. 142].

Emanuelli, Claude, Droit international privé québécois (3rd Ed. 2011), pp. 116 to 18 [para. 45].

Lafond, Pierre-Claude, Le recours collectif comme voie d'accès à la justice pour les consommateurs (1996), p. 419 [para. 149].

L'Heureux, Nicole, and Lacoursière, Marc, Droit de la consommation (6th Ed. 2011), at p. 146 [para. 51].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (5th Ed. 2012), p. 15-38 [para. 112].

Counsel:

Yves Martineau, for the appellants;

Daniel Belleau, Maxime Nasr and Violette Leblanc, for the respondent, Option consommateurs;

No one appeared for the respondent, Claudette Cloutier;

David Sterns and Jean-Marc Leclerc, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Stikeman Elliott, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

Belleau Lapointe, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent, Option consommateurs;

Sotos, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on October 17, 2012, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. LeBel and Wagner, JJ., delivered the following joint reasons for judgment for the Supreme Court in both official languages on October 31, 2013.