Courts in two Canadian cases have recently made it easier to certify direct and indirect-purchaser class actions seeking damages for alleged price fixing. Formerly, the difficulty of proving damages suffered by indirect purchasers on a class-wide basis was a major impediment to certifying such…
Full article
In two recent decisions, the Ontario Superior Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal relied on the aggregate damages provisions of the Class Proceedings Act in their respective provinces to certify class actions seeking damages for alleged conspiracies to fix prices for hydrogen peroxide and DRAM memory chips. In doing this, both courts side-stepped the requirement in the aggregate damages provisions that liability must be proved before damages can be assessed in the aggregate. A close examination of the decisions suggests, however, that the courts have in effect done away with this statutory requirement.
Full article
Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Jennifer Dyck, and Christian Farahat.
Review of all Canadian Competition Law developments over the last 12 months, plus some US and EU developments, including: Mergers, Criminal, Private Actions, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond
Top Stories
- Hard time for hard core cartels
- Class action requirements loosened
- Suncor – Petro-Canada merger gets green light
- Nadeau’s feathers ruffled by Tribunal
Full article
In a recent decision, a five judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario revised the legal test to be applied when the Ontario courts are asked to assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. The Court’s decision in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. clarifies the applicable legal principles and should provide greater guidance to Ontario courts on whether and when they can properly take jurisdiction over foreign defendants.
Full article
In its decision released earlier this year in Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital,[i] the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a $3 million judgment awarded to a doctor in his action against a hospital arising from the denial of hospital privileges to him. The Court concluded that the hospital’s Board of Governors had acted in bad faith in summarily revoking the doctor’s hospital privileges primarily because he didn’t “fit in” with his fellow staff members.
Full article