Ont. v. Rothmans Inc.,

JurisdictionOntario
JudgeDoherty, Simmons and Blair, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2013 ONCA 353
Citation(2013), 305 O.A.C. 261 (CA),2013 ONCA 353,115 OR (3d) 561,363 DLR (4th) 506,[2013] OJ No 2367 (QL),305 OAC 261,[2013] O.J. No 2367 (QL),115 O.R. (3d) 561,305 O.A.C. 261,363 D.L.R. (4th) 506,(2013), 305 OAC 261 (CA)
Date30 May 2013
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)

Ont. v. Rothmans Inc. (2013), 305 O.A.C. 261 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.036

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (plaintiff/respondent) v. Rothmans Inc., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., Carreras Rothmans Limited, Altria Group, Inc., Philip Morris U.S.A. Inc., Philip Morris International, Inc., JTI-Macdonald Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, British American Tobacco p.l.c., B.A.T. Industries p.l.c., British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, and Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (defendants/appellants)

(C55001; C55003; C55008; C55010; C55012; 2013 ONCA 353)

Indexed As: Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Simmons and Blair, JJ.A.

May 30, 2013.

Summary:

The Province of Ontario sued several tobacco companies (defendants) under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, alleging that they had committed "tobacco related wrongs" (in this case conspiracy). Six of the foreign defendants (i.e., the jurisdiction challenging defendants (JCDs)) asserted that the Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction to determine the claims against them. They brought a motion to set aside the service ex juris of Ontario's statement of claim and to stay or dismiss the action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 22, dismissed the motion. The motions judge held that the claim was properly served under rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. There was a real and substantial connection between the Province of Ontario, the subject matter of the claim, and the JCDs. The court had jurisdiction simpliciter over the JCDs. The JCDs appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 601

Jurisdiction - General principles - General - [See both Conflict of Laws - Topic 7600 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1201

Service out of jurisdiction - Torts - General - Ontario sued several tobacco companies under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, alleging that they had committed "tobacco related wrongs" (in this case conspiracy) - A motion by six of the foreign defendants to set aside service ex juris for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed - The defendants appealed, arguing that the statutory cause of action was not a tort committed within Ontario and was not sufficiently analogous to such a claim such as to qualify as a presumptive connecting factor sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection with Ontario (Van Breda (SCC 2012)) - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The motions judge did not err in concluding that Ontario's statutory claim constituted a claim in respect of a tort committed in Ontario or an analogous type of claim sufficient to found a presumptive connecting factor and trigger the right to effect service out of Ontario under Civil Procedure Rule 17.02(g) - See paragraphs 3 to 52.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7600

Torts - Jurisdiction - General - Ontario sued several tobacco companies under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, alleging that they had committed "tobacco related wrongs" (in this case conspiracy) - A motion by six of the foreign defendants to set aside service ex juris for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed - The defendants appealed, arguing that the good arguable case standard for assuming jurisdiction required that the motion judge determine whether Ontario's statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under rule 21.01(1)(b) - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the defendants' argument - The court stated that "the motion judge is not required to subject the pleadings to the scrutiny applicable on a rule 21 motion. So long as a statement of claim advances the core elements of a cause of action known to law and appears capable of being amended to cure any pleadings deficiencies such that the claim will have at least some prospect of success, the issue for the motion judge is whether the claimant has established a good arguable case that the cause of action is sufficiently connected to Ontario to permit an Ontario court to assume jurisdiction. If an Ontario court can assume jurisdiction, the issue of the adequacy of the pleadings is properly dealt with on a motion brought under rule 21.01(1)(b) ..." - See paragraphs 82 to 107.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7600

Torts - Jurisdiction - General - Ontario sued several tobacco companies under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, alleging that they had committed "tobacco related wrongs" (in this case conspiracy) - A motion by six of the foreign defendants to set aside service ex juris for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed - The defendants appealed, arguing that in holding that Ontario established a good arguable case for assuming jurisdiction, the motion judge erred by treating undenied allegations in the statement of claim as true - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the defendants' argument - The court stated that "this is not a case where the statement of claim contains nothing more than a series of bald allegations devoid of any factual foundation. We are satisfied that the pleadings, in combination with the affidavit evidence filed by the parties, adequately establish a cause of action known to law with a sufficient connection to Ontario. While the appellants take issue with the particularization of some of the plaintiff's allegations in its statement of claim, that issue may be addressed on a motion under rule 21.01(1)(b). A jurisdiction motion is not the appropriate proceeding for scrutinizing in detail the adequacy of the pleadings, nor is it the proper place for engaging in a rigorous assessment of whether the plaintiff's claim will ultimately succeed" - See paragraphs 108 to 119.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7605

Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 1201 ].

Health - Topic 1213

Public health legislation - Health care cost recovery schemes - Tobacco damages - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 1201 ].

Practice - Topic 2567

Service - Service of notice, writ or statement of claim out of jurisdiction - Grounds for setting aside service or order for service ex juris - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 1201 ].

Practice - Topic 7063.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - In-house counsel (incl. Crown counsel) - Ontario sued several tobacco companies under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, alleging that they had committed "tobacco related wrongs" (in this case conspiracy) - A motion by six of the foreign defendants to set aside service ex juris for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed - The motions judge treated costs for salaried Crown counsel as though they were costs of an independent outside counsel - The defendants appealed, arguing that the Crown had to file information to establish its hourly rates for counsel in order to establish a basis for the motions judge to determine a correct partial indemnity rate for the province - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The motions judge was entitled to use the approach she adopted - See paragraphs 129 to 138.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ash-Temple Co. (1949), 93 C.C.C. 267 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 2].

Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda - see Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd.

Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572; 429 N.R. 217; 291 O.A.C. 201; 343 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2012 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 28].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al. (2006), 232 B.C.A.C. 17; 385 W.A.C. 17; 56 B.C.L.R.(4th) 263; 2006 BCCA 398, refd to. [para. 37].

Vitapharm Canada Ltd. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. - see Ford et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. et al.

Ford et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. et al., [2002] O.T.C. 57; 20 C.P.C.(5th) 351 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., [2005] B.C.T.C. 946; 44 B.C.L.R.(4th) 125; 13 C.P.C.(6th) 272; 2005 BCSC 946, affd. (2006), 232 B.C.A.C. 17; 385 W.A.C. 17; 273 D.L.R.(4th) 711; 2006 BCCA 398, refd to. [para. 40].

New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc. et al. (2010), 373 N.B.R.(2d) 157; 964 A.P.R. 157; 2010 NBQB 381, refd to. [para. 40].

Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A. (2011), 281 O.A.C. 379; 2011 ONCA 548; 106 O.R.(3d) 561, refd to. [para. 54].

Ecolab Ltd. v. Greenspace Services Ltd. et al. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 199; 38 O.R.(3d) 145 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

Schreiber v. Mulroney, [2007] O.T.C. Uned. G72; 88 O.R.(3d) 605 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

AG Armeno Mines and Minerals Inc. v. PT Pukuafu Indah et al. (2000), 140 B.C.A.C. 93; 229 W.A.C. 93; 77 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 2000 BCCA 405, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 3].

Stanway v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. (2009), 279 B.C.A.C. 158; 473 W.A.C. 158; 314 D.L.R.(4th) 618; 2009 BCCA 592, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 3].

Furlan et al. v. Shell Oil Co. et al., [2000] 7 W.W.R. 433; 140 B.C.A.C. 235; 229 W.A.C. 235; 77 B.C.L.R.(3d) 35; 2000 BCCA 404, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 3].

Wall Estate et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. et al. (2010), 367 Sask.R. 21; 2010 SKQB 351, refd to. [para. 82].

Dawson et al. v. Rexcraft Storage and Warehouse Inc. et al. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 201; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Martin et al. v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals plc et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 2744; 27 C.P.C.(7th) 32; 2012 ONSC 2744, refd to. [para. 90].

Normart Management Ltd. v. West Hill Redevelopment Co. et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 375; 37 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

DG Jewelry Inc. et al. v. Cyberdiam Canada Ltd. et al., [2002] O.T.C. 251; 21 C.P.C.(5th) 174 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Young (J.G.) & Son Ltd. v. Tec Park Ltd. (1999), 48 C.P.C.(4th) 67 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Muscutt et al. v. Courcelles et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 1; 60 O.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 4].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 946; 44 B.C.L.R.(4th) 125, 13 C.P.C.(6th) 272; 2005 BCSC 946, refd to. [para. 110].

Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. General Electric Co. (1998), 50 O.T.C. 333; 36 O.R.(3d) 787 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 110].

Armak Chemicals Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1991), 52 O.A.C. 188; 5 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Stellarbridge Management Inc. v. Magna International (Canada) Inc. et al. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 78; 71 O.R.(3d) 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

1465778 Ontario Inc. et al. v. 1122077 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2006), 216 O.A.C. 339; 82 O.R.(3d) 757 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

Chiefs of Ontario v. Ontario, [2007] O.J. No. 4068 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 134].

Eastwood (deceased), Re, [1974] 3 All E.R. 603, refd to. [para. 136].

Green, Michaels and Associates Ltd., Edmonton (City) and Consumer's Association of Canada (Alberta Branch) v. Public Utilities Board (Alta.) (1985), 58 A.R. 366; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 459 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 136].

Edmonton (City) v. Public Utilities Board (Alta.) - see Green, Michaels and Associates Ltd., Edmonton (City) and Consumer's Association of Canada (Alberta Branch) v. Public Utilities Board (Alta.).

872245 N.W.T. Ltd. v. Dowdall, [1989] N.W.T.J. No. 114 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 136].

Grand &Toy Ltd. v. Aviva Can. Inc., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 372; 2010 ONSC 372, refd to. [para. 136].

Boucher et al. v. Public Accountants Council (Ont.) et al. (2004), 188 O.A.C. 201; 71 O.R.(3d) 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

Society of Lloyd's v. Saunders, [2001] O.A.C. Uned. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

Bossé v. Mastercraft Group Inc. et al. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 185; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Procedure Rules (Ont.) - see Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.).

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 131(2) [para. 135].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 57.01(1)(O.a) [para. 132].

Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-15, sect. 36 [para. 135].

Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.O. 2009, c. 13, sect. 1(1) [para. 9]; sect. 2(1) [para. 6]; sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2) [para. 11].

Counsel:

Charles F. Scott and Shaun Laubman, for the appellant, B.A.T. Industries p.l.c.;

David R. Byers, Adrian C. Lang and Lesley Mercer, for the appellant, British American Tobacco p.l.c.;

Craig P. Dennis and Owen James, for the appellant, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited;

Guy J. Pratte, Ira Nishisato and Cindy Clarke, for the appellant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc.;

Christopher M. Rusnak and Steven Abramson, for the appellant, Carreras Rothmans Limited;

William J. Manuel, Lise G. Favreau, Edmund Huang and Kevin Hille, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on November 5, 6 and 7, 2012, before Doherty, Simmons and Blair, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was released for the court by Simmons and Blair, JJ.A., on May 30, 2013.

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 27-30, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 5, 2022
    ..., Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165 , Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224 , Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353, Boyd v Cook, 2016 BCCA 424 , Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2016 SCC 30 Demme v. Healthcare ......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JUNE 27 – JUNE 30)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • July 2, 2022
    ..., Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165 , Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224 , Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353, Boyd v Cook, 2016 BCCA 424 , Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2016 SCC 30 Demme v. Healthcare......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 18-22, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 26, 2021
    ...Standard of Review, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.10, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 , Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353, Vahle v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., 2020 ONCA 224 , Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792 , Young v. Tyco International of Canada ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 18-22, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 26, 2021
    ...Standard of Review, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.10, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 , Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353, Vahle v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., 2020 ONCA 224 , Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792 , Young v. Tyco International of Canada ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
44 cases
  • Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al., (2015) 335 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 11, 2014
    ...SCC 16 , refd to. [para. 72]. Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 , refd to. [para. 80]. Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. et al. (2013), 305 O.A.C. 261; 115 O.R.(3d) 561 ; 2013 ONCA 353 , refd to. [para. Muscutt et al. v. Courcelles et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 1 ; 60 O.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.)......
  • Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al., (2015) 474 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 11, 2014
    ...SCC 16 , refd to. [para. 72]. Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 , refd to. [para. 80]. Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. et al. (2013), 305 O.A.C. 261; 115 O.R.(3d) 561 ; 2013 ONCA 353 , refd to. [para. Muscutt et al. v. Courcelles et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 1 ; 60 O.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.)......
  • Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co. Limited v. Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP, 2020 ONSC 934
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • February 11, 2020
    ...v . Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 at para. 43; Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 at paras. 81, 97. [19] Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353 at paras. 53-54; Tucows.com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548 at para. 36, leave to appeal refused [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 450; Ecolab Ltd......
  • Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al., [2015] N.R. TBEd. SE.001
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...exists before the province's courts can exercise jurisdiction: Chevron Canada's factum, at para. 86, citing Ontario v. Rothman's Inc. , 2013 ONCA 353, 115 O.R. (3d) 561 , at para. 54. In its submission, there is none here. [81] I do not accept Chevron Canada's submissions. Van Breda specif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 27-30, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 5, 2022
    ..., Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165 , Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224 , Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353, Boyd v Cook, 2016 BCCA 424 , Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2016 SCC 30 Demme v. Healthcare ......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JUNE 27 – JUNE 30)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • July 2, 2022
    ..., Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165 , Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224 , Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353, Boyd v Cook, 2016 BCCA 424 , Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2016 SCC 30 Demme v. Healthcare......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 18-22, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 26, 2021
    ...Standard of Review, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.10, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 , Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353, Vahle v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., 2020 ONCA 224 , Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792 , Young v. Tyco International of Canada ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 18-22, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 26, 2021
    ...Standard of Review, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.10, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 , Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353, Vahle v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., 2020 ONCA 224 , Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792 , Young v. Tyco International of Canada ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Mi Casa Es Su Casa: Van Breda as the House Rule for Global Securities Class Actions in Ontario
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 11-1, October 2015
    • October 1, 2015
    ...body of 45 See Kain & Shaw, above note 17 at 252; Kaynes SC, above note 6 at paras 14 and 27–28, citing Ontario (AG) v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353 at para 44 [Rothmans]; Laing & Morgan, above note 24 at 106. 46 Van Breda, above note 11 at para 86 [emphasis added]. 47 Passport System, BCSC M......
  • The Rise of Personal Health Information Class Actions
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 11-1, October 2015
    • October 1, 2015
    ...body of 45 See Kain & Shaw, above note 17 at 252; Kaynes SC, above note 6 at paras 14 and 27–28, citing Ontario (AG) v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353 at para 44 [Rothmans]; Laing & Morgan, above note 24 at 106. 46 Van Breda, above note 11 at para 86 [emphasis added]. 47 Passport System, BCSC M......
  • Canadian Privacy Class Actions at the Crossroads
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 11-1, October 2015
    • October 1, 2015
    ...body of 45 See Kain & Shaw, above note 17 at 252; Kaynes SC, above note 6 at paras 14 and 27–28, citing Ontario (AG) v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353 at para 44 [Rothmans]; Laing & Morgan, above note 24 at 106. 46 Van Breda, above note 11 at para 86 [emphasis added]. 47 Passport System, BCSC M......
  • Upsetting the Apple Cart: Certifying Class Actions for Food Labelling Reform
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 11-1, October 2015
    • October 1, 2015
    ...body of 45 See Kain & Shaw, above note 17 at 252; Kaynes SC, above note 6 at paras 14 and 27–28, citing Ontario (AG) v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353 at para 44 [Rothmans]; Laing & Morgan, above note 24 at 106. 46 Van Breda, above note 11 at para 86 [emphasis added]. 47 Passport System, BCSC M......
  • 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