Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al., (2013) 345 B.C.A.C. 87 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 17, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 345 B.C.A.C. 87 (SCC);2013 SCC 58

Sun-Rype Products v. Archer Daniels (2013), 345 B.C.A.C. 87 (SCC);

    589 W.A.C. 87

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] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.060

Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg (appellants/respondents on cross-appeal) v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products Company, Corn Products International, Inc., Bestfoods, Inc., formerly known as CPC International, Inc., ADM Agri-Industries Company, Cargill Limited, Casco Inc. and Unilever PLC doing business as Unilever Bestfoods North America (respondents/appellants on cross-appeal) and Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Chamber of Commerce (interveners)

(34283; 2013 SCC 58; 2013 CSC 58)

Indexed As: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

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

October 31, 2013.

Summary:

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was a sweetener used in various food products. The defendant companies were the leading producers of HFCS in North America. The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act (CPA), alleging that the defendants engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers. Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff. Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff. The class action was commenced on behalf of "all persons resident in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada who purchased HFCS or products containing HFCS manufactured by the [defendants] ... from January 1, 1988 to June 30, 1995". It alleged the following causes of action: a) contravention of s. 45(1) of Part VI of the Competition Act giving rise to a right of damages under s. 36(1) of that Act; b) tortious conspiracy and intentional interference with economic interests; c) unjust enrichment, waiver of tort and constructive trust; and d) punitive damages. The defendants brought a pre-certification motion to strike the claims on the basis that they were statute-barred.

The British Columbia Supreme Court (Rice, J.), in a decision reported at [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 336, allowed only the claim for a remedial constructive trust to proceed because it was subject to a longer (10-year) limitation period than the other claims. The defendants appealed. The plaintiffs cross-appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2008), 257 B.C.A.C. 218; 432 W.A.C. 218, found that the direct purchaser representative plaintiff, Sun-Rype, could maintain only its cause of action in remedial constructive trust and that all of its claims for damages, including damages under the Competition Act, were statute-barred. As to the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff, Bredin, the court found that she could maintain all of her causes of action because the limitation period on her claims did not begin until "she received the telephone call from her lawyer advising her of the proposed class action".

The British Columbia Supreme Court (Rice, J.), in a decision reported at [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 922, dealt with the application for certification. Rice, J., found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for the direct purchasers in constructive trust and for the indirect purchasers under s. 36 of the Competition Act, in tort and in restitution. Rice, J., also found that the remaining certification requirements were met. He certified the action. The defendants appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Donald, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at (2011), 305 B.C.A.C. 55; 515 W.A.C. 55, held that it was plain and obvious that indirect purchasers did not have a cause of action. The majority reached that conclusion on the basis that the rejection of the passing on defence in Canada carried as its necessary corollary a corresponding rejection of the offensive use of passing on in the form of an indirect purchaser action. With respect to the indirect purchasers, the majority allowed the appeal and found that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action on their part. However, with respect to direct purchasers, the majority found that the appeal should be dismissed. The court set aside the certification order and remitted the matter to the British Columbia Supreme Court to reconsider the certification of the action of the direct purchasers alone. The plaintiffs appealed. The defendants cross-appealed seeking dismissal of the direct purchasers' claim in constructive trust.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Karakatsanis and Cromwell, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. The majority found that an identifiable class could not be established for the indirect purchasers and the class action as it related to the indirect purchasers could not be certified. The court unanimously allowed the defendants' cross-appeal, finding that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action in constructive trust and the claim of the direct purchasers could not succeed.

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 Infineon Technologies AG et al. v. Option Consommateurs et al., reported at 450 N.R. 355.

Damages - Topic 510

Limits of compensatory damages - General - Prohibition against double recovery - [See first and second Practice - Topic 208 ].

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - For damages - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act, alleging that the defendants engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff - Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - The defendants argued that because the passing-on defence had been rejected in Canada, the direct purchasers were entitled to 100 percent of the amount of the overcharge - Consequently they said that indirect purchasers made a duplicative and overlapping claim to an overcharge to which the direct purchasers were entitled - The Supreme Court of Canada held that this argument was insufficient to deny indirect purchasers the right to be included in the class action - The plaintiffs sought recovery of a defined sum equal to the aggregate of the overcharge - Where indirect and direct purchasers were included in the same class and the evidence of the experts at the trial of the common issues would determine the aggregate amount of the overcharge, there would be no double or multiple recovery - Recovery was limited to that aggregate amount, no matter how it was ultimately shared by the direct and indirect purchasers - To the extent that there was conflict between the class members as to how the aggregate amount was to be distributed upon the awarding of a settlement or upon a successful action, this was not a concern of the defendants and was not a basis for denying indirect purchasers the right to be included in the class action - See paragraphs 17 to 20.

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - For damages - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act, alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff - Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - The defendants expressed concerns of over-recovery arising from actions in the United States - Specifically, the defendants stated that in the U.S. direct purchasers of HFCS had already reached a settlement with the defendants for the entire overcharge - They claimed that if the rights of the indirect purchasers to bring an action were recognized in Canada, that would create "overlapping claims to the same loss between direct purchasers in the U.S. and indirect purchasers in British Columbia" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the court is equipped to deal with these risks. The court possesses the power to modify settlement and damage awards in accordance with awards already received by plaintiffs in other jurisdictions if the respondents are able to satisfy them that double recovery may occur. If the respondents adduce relevant evidence, the court will be able to ensure that double recovery does not occur" - See paragraph 21.

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - For damages - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act (CPA), alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff - Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - As part of their argument that indirect purchaser actions should not be allowed, the defendants made much of the fact that in many other price-fixing cases in Canada, awards to indirect purchasers had been disbursed in the form of cy-près payments because the amounts in question were so small as to make identification of and distribution to each individual class member impractical - They claimed that cy-près distributions did not advance the deterrence objective of the Canadian competition laws because any deterrence function could be achieved to an equal extent by a claim made solely by direct purchasers - They also argued that because the award would be distributed to a not-for-profit entity in place of the class members, the compensation goal of the Canadian competition laws was also frustrated - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the precedent for cy-près distribution is well established ... this method of distributing settlement proceeds or damage awards is contemplated by the CPA, at s. 34(1) ... It is also a method the courts have used in indirect purchaser price-fixing cases ... And, while its very name, meaning 'as near as possible', implies that it is not the ideal mode of distribution, it allows the court to disburse the money to an appropriate substitute for the class members themselves ... As such, while the compensation objective is not furthered by a cy-près distribution, it cannot be said that deterrence is reduced by the possibility that a settlement will eventually be distributed in that manner. These factors do not preclude indirect purchasers from bringing an action or from being included in the class" - See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Practice - Topic 208.4

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Aggregate damages - [See first Practice - Topic 208 ].

Practice - Topic 209.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Members of class - General - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act (CPA), alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff - Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - At issue was whether the action should be certified - Section 4(1)(b) of the CPA required an identifiable class of two or more persons - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plaintiffs had not established some basis in fact that at least two class members could be identified - The defendants' evidence was that HFCS and liquid sugar had been used interchangeably by direct purchasers during the class period and that a generic label indicating only "sugar/glucose-fructose" could be used for either type of sweetener - Indirect purchasers would not be able to know whether the particular item that they purchased contained HFCS - The plaintiffs had not offered evidence that could help overcome the identification problem created by the fact that HFCS and liquid sugar were used interchangeably - On the evidence presented on the application for certification, it appeared impossible to determine class membership - While there may have been indirect purchasers who were harmed by the alleged price-fixing, they could not self-identify using the proposed definition - The class membership was not determinable - The criteria of an identifiable class of two or more persons was not met - The court stated that "This is not to say that an identifiable class could never be found in similar circumstances as appear in this case. An identifiable class could be found if evidence was presented that provided some basis in fact that at least two persons could prove they had suffered individual harm. The problem in this case is that no such evidence was tendered" - Given that an identifiable class could not be established for the indirect purchasers, the class action as it related to the indirect purchasers could not be certified - See paragraphs 52 to 79.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - [See second Restitution - Topic 696 ].

Practice - Topic 209.7

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Evidence and proof - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act (CPA), alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff - Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - At issue was whether the action should be certified - Section 4(1)(c) of the CPA required that the claims of the class members raise common issues - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the standard to be applied to determining whether there were common issues was "some basis in fact" and not a balance of probabilities - The standard to be applied to expert evidence was one requiring a credible and plausible methodology capable of proving harm on a class-wide basis - The court stated that "It is evident that on the certification application, Rice J. analysed the significant amount of expert evidence that was before him and that he applied the correct standard to both the certification requirements ('plain and obvious' for s. 4(1)(a) and 'some basis in fact' for s. 4(1)(b) to (e)) and the expert methodology required to establish some basis in fact (whether the expert evidence consisted of a credible and plausible model capable of proving harm on a class-wide basis). There is no basis upon which to interfere with his common issues determination" - See paragraphs 48 to 51.

Restitution - Topic 67

Unjust enrichment - General - Persons entitled to claim - [See both Restitution - Topic 696 ].

Restitution - Topic 123

Unjust enrichment - Remedies - Constructive trust - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act (CPA), alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff - Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - At issue was whether the action should be certified including whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was plain and obvious that Sun-Rype's claim in constructive trust had to fail as there was no referential property and no explanation of why a monetary remedy would be inappropriate or insufficient - The claim of the direct purchasers in constructive trust should be struck - See paragraphs 39 to 41.

Restitution - Topic 696

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Recovery of money - Indirect purchasers (incl. offensive use of passing on) - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act, alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff - Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - The majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that the rejection of the passing on defence in Canada carried as its necessary corollary a corresponding rejection of the offensive use of passing on in the form of an indirect purchaser action - The court rejected the offensive use of passing on based on the theory that once the passing-on defence was rejected, the direct purchasers would be entitled to the whole amount by which they were overcharged - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "I would agree that absent an action by indirect purchasers or absent the inclusion of indirect purchasers in the action, the direct purchasers would be able to recover the entire amount of the overcharge because the overcharger would be unable to invoke the passing-on defence. However, this is not the same as saying the direct purchasers are entitled to the entire amount of the overcharge. ... While a defendant cannot invoke the passing-on defence, the direct purchasers cannot deny that they have passed on the overcharge to the indirect purchasers. Where indirect purchasers are able to demonstrate that overcharges were passed on to them they are entitled to claim those overcharges" - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Restitution - Topic 696

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Recovery of money - Indirect purchasers (incl. offensive use of passing on) - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act, alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff, and Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - At issue was whether the action should be certified - With respect to whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, the defendants argued that "both the benefit conferred and deprivation (or loss) suffered was that of the direct purchasers alone" and as such, it was the direct purchasers alone who could bring a claim for restitution - They submitted that no benefit was conferred directly by the indirect purchaser to the overcharger and that the deprivation in question was suffered by the direct purchasers and not the indirect purchasers, because the passing on of losses was not recognized at law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The requirement that there be a direct relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff for a claim in unjust enrichment is not settled. ... Accordingly, it cannot be said that it is plain and obvious that a claim in unjust enrichment should fail at the certification stage on this ground alone. As to the recognition of passed-on losses, that question has been answered conclusively: the injury suffered by indirect purchasers is recognized at law as is their right to bring actions to recover for those losses" - No insurmountable problem was created by allowing the claims in restitution to be brought by a class comprised of both direct and indirect purchasers - The indirect and direct purchasers would share the aggregate amount recovered in the event that the action was successful - To the extent that there were competing claims among the direct and indirect purchasers, that could be sorted out at a later stage of the proceeding - The indirect purchasers' cause of action in restitution should not be struck out - See paragraphs 33 to 38.

Trade Regulation - Topic 506

Competition - General - Civil remedy (Competition Act, s. 36) - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act, alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff, and Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - At issue was whether the action should be certified including whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action - Section 36 of the Competition Act provided a cause of action to "[a]ny person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of (a) conduct that is contrary to any provision of Part VI" - The defendants, basing their argument on their fundamental position that passed-on losses were not recognized at law, asserted that s. 36 was not intended to provide a right of action to indirect purchasers - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument for the reasons explained in the companion case, Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. - It was not plain and obvious that a cause of action for the indirect purchasers under s. 36 of the Competition Act could not succeed - See paragraphs 42 to 43.

Trade Regulation - Topic 506

Competition - General - Civil remedy (Competition Act, s. 36) - The defendant companies produced high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used in various food products - The representative plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to British Columbia's Class Proceedings Act, alleging that the defendant companies engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of HFCS resulting in harm to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers - Sun-Rype Products Ltd., a juice manufacturer, was the direct purchaser representative plaintiff, and Bredin was the indirect purchaser representative plaintiff - At issue was whether the action should be certified including whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action - The defendants argued that "an alleged conspiracy entered into outside Canada, among foreign defendants, to fix prices of products sold to foreign direct purchasers does not constitute an offence under the Competition Act giving rise to a right of civil action" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The conduct in question, while perpetrated by foreign defendants, allegedly involved each respondent's Canadian subsidiary acting as its agent. The sales in question were made in Canada, to Canadian customers and Canadian end-consumers. There is at least some suggestion in the case law that where defendants conduct business in Canada, make sales in Canada and conspire to fix prices on products sold in Canada, Canadian courts have jurisdiction ... The respondents have not demonstrated that it is plain and obvious that Canadian courts have no jurisdiction over the alleged anti-competitive acts committed in this case. The cause of action under s. 36 of the Competition Act should not be struck out" - See paragraphs 44 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 201; 2013 SCC 57, appld. [paras. 1, 91].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al. (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 90; 513 W.A.C. 90; 2011 BCCA 186, refd to. [para. 10].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG et al. (2009), 277 B.C.A.C. 271; 469 W.A.C. 271; 98 B.C.L.R.(4th) 272; 2009 BCCA 503, refd to. [para. 19].

Option consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2011 QCCA 2116, refd to. [para. 19].

Infineon Technologies AG et al. v. Option consommateurs et al. (2013), 450 N.R. 355; 2013 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 19].

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. 23].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 31].

Elder Advocates of Alberta Society et al. v. Alberta et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 261; 416 N.R. 198; 499 A.R. 345; 514 W.A.C. 345; 2011 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 31].

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. [paras. 31, 91].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 762; 144 N.R. 1; 59 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 36].

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Canada - see Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario.

Tracy et al. v. Instaloans Financial Solutions Centres (B.C.) Ltd. et al. (2010), 290 B.C.A.C. 193; 491 W.A.C. 193; 2010 BCCA 357, refd to. [para. 40].

Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269; 411 N.R. 200; 300 B.C.A.C. 1; 509 W.A.C. 1; 274 O.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 41].

Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 17; 429 N.R. 217; 291 O.A.C. 201; 2012 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 45].

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. 46].

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

Fairhurst v. Anglo American plc et al. (2012), 323 B.C.A.C. 50; 550 W.A.C. 50; 35 B.C.L.R.(5th) 45; 2012 BCCA 257, refd to. [para. 46].

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. 46].

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. 54].

Lau et al. v. Bayview Landmark Inc. et al., [1999] O.T.C. 220; 40 C.P.C.(4th) 301 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 57, 91].

Bywater v. Toronto Transit Commission (1998), 83 O.T.C. 1; 27 C.P.C.(4th) 172 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 57].

Sauer v. Canada (Agriculture), 2008 CanLII 43774 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 59, 99].

Taub v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (1998), 40 O.R.(3d) 379 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 68].

Steele et al. v. Toyota Canada Inc. et al. (2011), 306 B.C.A.C. 132; 516 W.A.C. 132; 14 B.C.L.R.(5th) 271; 2011 BCCA 98, refd to. [para. 97].

Risorto et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. S52; 38 C.P.C.(6th) 373 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 99].

Gilbert et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [2004] O.T.C. 902; 3 C.P.C.(6th) 35 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 101].

Cassano et al. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. F98; 98 O.R.(3d) 543 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 101].

Ford et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche (F.) Ltd. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 207; 74 O.R.(3d) 758 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 105].

Alfresh Beverages Canada Corp. v. Hoechst AG et al., [2002] O.T.C. 19; 16 C.P.C.(5th) 301 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 105].

MacKinnon v. National Money Mart Co. et al. (2006), 224 B.C.A.C. 137; 370 W.A.C. 137; 265 D.L.R.(4th) 214; 2006 BCCA 148, refd to. [para. 109, footnote 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, sect. 4(1) [para. 29]; sect. 29(c) [para. 100]; sect. 31(1) [para. 100]; sect. 34(1) [para. 25]; sect. 34(3), sect. 34(4) [para. 100].

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, sect. 36 [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blynn, Daniel, Cy Pres Distributions: Ethics & Reform (2012), 25 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 435, p. 435 [para. 26].

Eizenga, Michael A., et. al., Class Actions Law and Practice (2nd Ed. 2009) (looseleaf updated May 2013, release 22), ྷ 9.19 [para. 25].

Maddaugh, Peter D., and McCamus, John D., The Law of Restitution (2013) (looseleaf updated May 2013, release 10), p. 3-1 [para. 23].

Counsel:

J.J. Camp, Q.C., Reidar Mogerman, Melina Buckley and Michael Sobkin, for the appellants/respondents on cross-appeal;

D. Michael Brown, Gregory J. Nash and David K. Yule, for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal, Archer Daniels Midland Company and ADM Agri-Industries Company;

J. Kenneth McEwan, Q.C., and Eileen M. Patel, for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products Company and Cargill Limited;

Stephen R. Schachter, Q.C., Geoffrey B. Gomery, Q.C., and Peter R. Senkpiel, for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal, Corn Products International, Inc., Bestfoods, Inc., formerly known as CPC International, Inc., Casco Inc. and Unilever PLC doing business as Unilever Bestfoods North America;

John S. Tyhurst, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Davit D. Akman and Adam Fanaki, for the intervener, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Solicitors of Record:

Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants/respondents on cross-appeal;

Norton Rose Fulbright, Toronto, Ontario; Nash & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal, Archer Daniels Midland Company and ADM Agri-Industries Company;

Hunter Litigation Chambers, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products Company and Cargill Limited;

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents/appellants on cross-appeal, Corn Products International, Inc., Bestfoods, Inc., formerly known as CPC International, Inc., Casco Inc. and Unilever PLC doing business as Unilever Bestfoods North America;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

This appeal and cross-appeal were 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. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on October 31, 2013, including the following opinions:

Rothstein, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Moldaver and Wager, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 80;

Karakatsanis, J. (Cromwell, J., concurring), dissenting on the appeal - see paragraphs 81 to 122.