Canada: Product Liability e-COMMUNIQUÉ - November 2014

Pruning the Weeds in Class Action Proceedings

By Emily Larose, Stephanie Voudouris

In its 2014 decision in Player v Janssen-Ortho Inc. the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed a class action claim against two pharmaceutical manufacturer defendants in a pre-certification summary trial. Resolution of substantive issues prior to certification is out of the ordinary in proposed class actions in Canada, especially in light of jurisprudence suggesting judicial reluctance to tackle complex matters at that early stage.  Decisions such as this may signal a growing willingness on the part of Canadian courts to address substantive as well as procedural issues at this early stage.

The Case

The action alleged, among other things, that prescription painkillers (transdermal fentanyl patches) manufactured, marketed and distributed by five drug companies were defectively designed and caused serious harm in ordinary use.

Prior to the certification hearing, two of the defendants (Teva Canada Limited and Sandoz Canada Incorporated) brought applications for a summary trial to dismiss the action against them. Teva and Sandoz argued that the Plaintiffs' claim was over inclusive because they manufactured different types of transdermal fentanyl patches.

The Plaintiffs argued that a summary trial was inappropriate because the class action had not yet been certified. Since the decision would only be binding on the Plaintiffs, other members of the proposed class could pursue the claim thus leading to the kind of duplicate proceedings that class proceedings statutes were enacted to avoid. The Plaintiffs argued that it would be more appropriate and efficient to certify the class and then hear the summary trial so that any decision would be binding on the proposed class as a whole.

The Decision

The Court ruled that a summary trial was appropriate and dismissed the case against both Teva and Sandoz.

While there is precedent in British Columbia of judgment being granted in pre-certification summary trials, previous such cases concerned questions of contract or statutory interpretation. By contrast, Jansen-Ortho Inc. involved many disputed facts, especially those put forward by experts, and a voluminous evidentiary record.

The Court emphasized that the purpose of the summary trial is to expedite the early resolution of cases by allowing parties to put in evidence via affidavits, rather than oral testimony. The court must consider a number of factors to determine whether a summary trial is appropriate. These factors include: the complexity of the matter, the urgency of the matter, the cost of litigation, and whether credibility is a critical factor in the determination of the dispute.

In determining that this case was appropriate for summary trial, the Court noted that:

  • The parties had completed witness examinations and cross-examinations;
  • Although the materials filed were extensive (in excess of 5000 pages), the issues were straightforward;
  • Access to justice concerns expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada indicate that judges should interpret summary trial rules broadly so as to encourage the streamlining of trial proceedings and the recognition that access to justice does not necessarily mean relying on the conventional trial as a means to resolve disputes.

A fourth consideration may also have influenced the Court's decision, although it was not explicitly mentioned: the plaintiffs could still pursue their claims against the three remaining defendants.

It is important to note the Court's express recognition of the practical benefits of pre-certification summary trials. The Court acknowledged that a decision to dismiss the action in a summary trial can only bind the plaintiffs. It also noted, however, that where issues concern the liability of the defendant(s), the dismissal can serve as a catalyst for settlement between other members of the proposed class and the defendant(s), or as an incentive to narrow the issues to be tried. In this regard, the Court says:

Class actions are a powerful tool. They allow an action to proceed where an individual plaintiff would find the cost of an action prohibitive as well as in actions where the research and investigation is not within the ability of a single plaintiff. However, it is not a tool where simply making an allegation against a defendant or group of defendants is sufficient. There must be evidence to warrant the expense of a full trial (para. 207).

Evidence at a Pre-Certification Summary Trial

In most Canadian provinces, including Ontario, a pre-certification class proceeding is treated as an individual action. In the class action context, the Court ruled that evidence from members of the putative class is nonetheless admissible but only for the purpose of determining whether it would be unjust to decide the issues in the application through a summary trial. If evidence from the plaintiffs is not enough to justify a finding of liability, the plaintiffs can point to evidence from proposed class members to show the court why it would be inappropriate to allow the case to proceed via summary trial (i.e., the issues are too complex).

Key Take Away Principle

The Court's decision may signify a trend whereby courts will begin to address complex substantive issues during the preliminary stages of class action proceedings, thus requiring both plaintiffs and defendants to put their best case forward at an early stage. His reasons suggest that pre-certification summary trials may function as gate-keepers for superfluous class actions. In this regard, he expressed the view that "it is not a principle of class action law that weeds should be allowed to ripen and grow, instead of being nipped in the bud."


1. 2014 BCSC 1122 (Janssen-Ortho Inc.)

"Beware of... Lawsuit"

By Peter Henein

The law on a party voluntarily assuming risk is pretty well set in Canada – there's even an old Latin maxim that dictates the law on the matter – volenti non fit injuria. The maxim holds that no wrong can be done to a person who consents to the injury.

Source: reddit

Recently, a photograph of a particularly clever warning sign went viral online (see @ThePeterHenein on Twitter). The sign appears to be an extension of the concept of volenti non fit injuria. The sign affixed to a fence warns of the following:

Please do not enter the dangerous area beyond this gate! You quite possibly will get hurt, then you will sue, then a protracted court battle will ensue exhausting your financial resources and you will lose because this sign that warned you will be "Exhibit 1".

This sign's popularity amongst legal practitioners provides an opportunity to reflect on the doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk – which comes up often when defending against product liability claims – and to analyse whether the statements in this sign are accurate. If someone did get hurt and sued the landowner, the legal proceeding may be protracted. Such a case would surely exhaust the parties' financial resources, and the sign would definitely be marked as an exhibit. However, the sign may not have sufficient information to limit the sign poster's liability.

Waiving Liability

Voluntary Assumption of Risk

Voluntary assumption of legal risk, if successfully argued, is a full defence to a negligence claim.2  In order to successfully make out this defence, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk, expressly or impliedly agreed to incur such risk.3  In order to do so, the sign waiving liability must be brought to the plaintiff's attention, and the waiver must sufficiently detail the risk the plaintiff is accepting.

In Saari v Sunshine Riding Academy, the Court found that a sign at a riding academy warning "Riders Ride at their Own Risk" did not protect the defendants from liability. There was no evidence that the sign was brought to the attention of the injured. Furthermore, the Court found that even if there was such evidence, it was "doubtful whether the words used are wide enough in their ordinary meaning to cover negligence on the part of the servants of the Riding Academy."4

In contrast, the Court found that the defendant occupier was not liable in Galka v Stankiewicz. In this case, two individuals went to an archery range managed by the City of Toronto ("the City"). At the front of the range, the City posted a sign outlining a set of rules for the archery range and warning archers to enter at their own risk.5  While one archer was collecting arrows on the field, the other accidentally fired an arrow into his friend's eye. Both archers admittedly read the sign, which expressly prohibited this conduct. The Court found that the sign was "obvious, legible, concise and understandable."6  The City was not held liable.

Liability for the Landowner

So let's talk about the warning sign that went all abuzz online...

Although the sign that went viral provides some detail regarding the consequences of going beyond the gate, the sign most pointedly deals with legal ramifications. The sign does not detail the physical danger. Even though the sign is in plain sight, would it persuade a court to absolve the owner from liability? Possibly, but we would argue most likely not. Arguably, the financial pain that results from a long drawn out litigation may be severely damaging to a person's wallet and spirits. However, the sign posts no reference to what will actually cause the injury that could lead to a protracted law suit (horse stampede? unmarked holes? angry chickens?). There is no explanation of what constitutes the alleged danger beyond the gate. Consequently, a court would not find that the person who goes beyond the fence voluntarily assumed the risk.

The landowner may still successfully defend against a suit by someone who hops the fence and sustains an injury. Pursuant to the Ontario Occupiers' Liability Act, an occupier of premises owes a duty of reasonable care to ensure that persons entering the premises are reasonably safe while on the premises.7  However, this duty of care does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person who enters the premises. In such a case, the occupier only owes a duty to the person to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person and to not have a reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his property.8  Because the fence is locked and has a sign that posits the area beyond the fence is dangerous, the landowner would argue that the person going beyond the fence assumed the risks. The duty of care that the land owner would owe a person hopping the fence would be minimal. As long as the owner does not set up traps or other mechanisms designed to cause injury, the landowner would not be liable for any ensuing injuries.

However all is not lost ... while the sign makes a less than optimal waiver, it does do a good job at punishing the person who goes beyond the gate. Section 3 of Ontario's Trespass to Property Act states that entry on premises is prohibited when an occupier posts a notice on an enclosed land indicating the occupier's intention to keep people off the premises.9  The sign in question politely but firmly notifies the public that the landowner intends to keep people off the premises; the land is also enclosed by a gate.  Assuming this sign were posted in Ontario, a person going beyond the gate would be guilty of an offence and on conviction would be liable to a fine of not more than $2,000.10

Beyond the Gate

The image does not provide details of the dangers that lie beyond the gate. If the landowner has created danger with the intent of causing harm or has a reckless disregard of the presence of such a person, such as installing booby traps, a landowner may be held liable to a person who sustains injuries when going beyond the gate. The sign would be marked as exhibit one, but the hurt would be borne by both parties.

Litigation is expensive. If a person went beyond the gate, suffered injuries, and subsequently sued the landowner, the ensuing litigation would be expensive for both parties. If the landowner was not properly insured, then he or she would need to pay for the costs of litigation. Even if the landowner won the suit, the costs award would not cover the entire cost of litigation. In order to avoid the costs of litigation, the suit would most likely settle, and the sign would never make it in as an exhibit.

Fortunately for the landowner here, many trespassers do not know the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. They do, however, know that law suits can be expensive. While a 'beware of dog' sign may not be a sufficient caution to scare trespassers, an expensive lawsuit is sufficiently terrorizing to keep away most intruders.

Key Take Away Principle

It would be pretty awful if this e-lert explained how expensive litigation was and then did not provide useful (and free) takeaways. If you want to have a legally enforceable sign that limits your liability, be sure to detail what dangers lay behind the sign. Otherwise you will be left with a sign that deters trespassers from going onto your property but does little in the way of limiting your legal liability. Most importantly, don't pull a "Wile E. Coyote" and set up a bunch of spring-loaded booby traps behind the sign. 

The contributions of Meredith Bacal, articling student, in the preparation of this article are gratefully acknowledged.


2.Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 1186 at para 34.

3. Stevens v Hoeberg (1972), 29 DLR (3d) 673 (Ont HC).

4. (1967), 65 DLR (2d) 92 (Man QB) at 100.

5. 2010 ONSC 2808, aff'd 2011 ONCA 428.

6. Ibid at para 73. 

7. Occupiers' Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O-2 at s 3(1).

8. Ibid at s 4(1).

9. RSO 1990, c T-21, s 3.

10. Ibid at s 2(1).

Do You Own Your Tissue? Think Again. Court Declares Excised Human Tissue Personal Property

By Stefanie Holland

Is human tissue sampled for the purpose of diagnostic testing personal property? This was the question faced by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Piljak Estate v. Abraham.  While this issue has long been disputed in the United States, it has rarely been addressed in Canada until now.


In May 2008, the defendant doctor performed a colonoscopy on Ms. Piljak during which he identified and excised a polyp in the ascending colon. In August 2009, Ms. Piljak underwent a CT scan at Sunnybrook Hospital for unrelated reasons, which revealed lesions in her liver and ascending colon.  A colonoscopy was performed and examination of a tissue sample revealed colorectal cancer, which resulted in Ms. Piljak's death in August 2011.

Ms. Piljak's estate subsequently commenced this action against Ms. Piljak's doctor, alleging that he should have detected the cancerous lesion during the 2008 colonoscopy and in failing to do so, breached the standard of care. The tissue block has been preserved and is in the possession of Sunnybrook Hospital, which is not a party to the proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion pursuant to rule 32.01 for the testing of tissue taken from the deceased plaintiff and in the possession of a non-party. Rule 32.01 permits the inspection of personal property where it appears to be necessary in order to determine an issue in the action and to permit the conducting of tests on samples. Ultimately, while the Court concluded that excised human tissue does constitute personal property, and that the testing was necessary to determine an issue in the action, the defendants made too many procedural errors to be successful in their motion.

Excised Human Tissue Constitutes Personal Property

In light of the fact that the Hospital's pathology department was in possession of the samples and had performed the testing, the Court determined that the Hospital owned the tissue samples. This was based on the fact that the tissue was subject to rights of ownership and constituted personal property to which inspection and testing under rule 32.01 apply.

Testing Is Necessary To Determine An Issue In The Action

The Court further addressed the question of whether the inspection and testing appeared to be necessary for the proper determination of an issue in the proceeding as required by the rule. For the proposed testing to meet this requirement, the moving party only needs to show a "reasonable possibility" that the proposed test will reveal something useful for the trier of fact.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had put forth no convincing evidence supporting the necessity of the testing.  However, the defendant's expert, Dr. Vincent, stated that with some early cancers, such as the HNPCC type, variance in the visibility of lesions can cause a missed diagnosis, and for this reason, it may be necessary to test the tissue.

The Court was satisfied that if the tissue established that Ms. Piljak's cancer was of the HNCPP type, that testing might go to the determination of whether the defendant doctor breached the standard of care, thereby fulfilling the requirement under rule 32.01.

Eight Reasons Why The Motion Failed

Despite the fact that the samples were declared personal property, this motion failed for eight reasons:

  1. The defendants were requesting a form of relief that is not offered under the rule. The court was being asked to order the plaintiffs to request the doctors to conduct the testing but the rule only permits the court to order an inspection of property and permit the conducting of tests.
  2. The defendants provided no evidence that they had retained someone to conduct the testing. The rule presupposes that the person inspecting the property is either a party or an expert retained by a party.
  3. The defendants gave no evidence that the doctor they proposed to conduct the testing had the expertise to do so.
  4. There was no evidence from the defendants that the doctor they were proposing to conduct the testing would be able to test for the HNPCC type cancer.
  5. The defendants put forth no evidence as to when, where or in what manner the testing would be conducted. The rule requires the Court to "specify the time, place and manner of the inspection."
  6. The defendants failed to adequately address the issue of prejudice to the plaintiffs, specifically whether, after testing, there will be sufficient tissue left for testing by the plaintiff's expert.
  7. The defendants failed to serve the notice of their motion on Sunnybrook Hospital, which  possessed the tissue. The rule requires that the person in possession of the property be given notice.
  8. The doctor who the defendants advised would be doing the testing, had not been served with the defendants' motion. Pursuant to the rule, any person who will be affected by the order sought, must be served.

Although Master Dash concluded that the tissue was personal property, his dismissal of the defendants' request to sample it was largely based on technical grounds.  However, the court did leave it open to the defendants to bring a fresh motion requesting the same relief, as long as they improved their position by satisfying the above criteria.

Key Take Away Principle

The significance of this decision is understated due to the Court's focus on the defendants' procedural errors, rather than on the guidance it provides in respect of peoples' rights to control what is done with their personal health data from their bodies. While this issue has long been disputed in the United States, it has rarely been addressed in Canada. This decision slightly shifts the Courts' previous view that such information goes to the personal integrity and autonomy of the individual. It further sheds light on what constitutes property and further, who owns that property.

However, if there is one thing to be learned from this decision, it is that parties and their counsel ought to be mindful of the procedural requirements of rule 32.01 to ensure that any need for testing on excised human tissue samples is not precluded merely by a procedural hiccup.

Even more significant, may be the potential effect of this ruling on stem cell research, the genetic pharmaceutical industry, and the potential for personal health data to become an increasingly valuable and hot commodity. 


11.  2014 ONSC 2893 <>  

Plaintiffs Locked Out of Recovery for Damages Relating to Poor Product Performance in Mazda Class Action

By Christopher Horkins

The recent decision of the Québec Superior Court in Fortin v. Mazda Canada inc. provides further basis for the growing trend against economic loss based tort claims in Canadian law.12  In a judgment delivered on May 20, 2014, the Court dismissed a class action brought against Mazda Canada Inc. ("Mazda"), the Canadian distributor of Mazda vehicles, which arose out of allegations relating to a design defect in the locking mechanism. The Court concluded that issues relating merely to quality of performance or functional deficiencies do not give rise to compensable design defects under statutory implied warranties of fitness.

The plaintiffs alleged that delivering a pressure blow to a specific area on the driver's side door, would cause the door to unlock. Beginning in September 2006, thefts using this technique were reported in British Columbia. As a result, Mazda developed a device to strengthen the door locking mechanism in December 2006 for new vehicles. No action was taken at that time to address the issue in vehicles on the road.

After the issue was reported in a Vancouver news broadcast in February 2007, break-ins to Mazda 3 vehicles increased dramatically and Mazda introduced a service campaign to install the strengthening device on existing vehicles. Mazda treated this issue as a customer satisfaction issue and advised its dealers against widespread publication of the issue in order to avoid spurring on further criminal activity taking advantage of the weakness in the locking mechanism. Approximately 75% of affected vehicles had completed the lock strengthening service by January of 2009, which increased to 82% by the time the common issues trial was heard in the fall of 2013.

The Québec class action was certified by the Court in June 2010 and divided the class into two sub-classes:

  1. All natural and legal persons domiciled or residing in Québec, employing fifty (50) employees or less, and who are or were lessees, finance lessees or owner of a 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 Mazda 3 vehicle, and who were the victims of a theft or an attack which left one or more dents around the driver's door handle; and
  2. All natural and legal persons domiciled or residing in Québec, employing fifty (50) employees or less, and who became lessees, finance lessees or owners of a 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 Mazda 3 vehicle, on which a driver's door lock strengthening device was installed after they took possession of the vehicle.

The plaintiffs sought various damages as a result of alleged breaches of implied warranties under Québec's Consumer Protection Act on the basis that the lock issue was a "design defect" causing the loss of use of the vehicle and that Mazda had misrepresented the quality of its vehicles through advertising. With respect to sub-class (1), the plaintiffs sought damages arising from the actual thefts or break-ins, including insurance deductibles assumed and the cost of repairing the dented doors of the vehicles. For sub-class (2), the plaintiffs sought damages for the disturbance and inconvenience of having the locking device installed at the dealership.

Although the Court found that the evidence led by both sides established that the locking mechanism clearly suffered from the weaknesses alleged by the plaintiffs, it also found that this weakness did not give rise to a design defect in breach of the warranties provided for in the Consumer Protection Act and that Mazda had not committed any misrepresentations as to the quality of its vehicles. As the court held, the mere presence of a deficiency, without manifestation of loss of use of the product, or any major inconveniences to the consumer, does not give rise to a breach of the statutory warranty.

In this case, the Court found that the lock performed as it should in its ordinary usage – that is, to lock the door. The warranty did not extend to require that the mechanism prevent a criminal with ill intentions from finding an illegal means to enter the car by force. The lock was found to comply with all applicable federal statutes and industry standards. While clearly there was an issue with respect to poor performance of the locking device, in the absence of any loss of use, the court found there was no design defect sufficient to impose liability under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Court also found that Mazda had not made any misrepresentations in advertising, as it never alleged to be providing a vehicle that was incapable of being broken into and no consumer could reasonably expect their vehicle to be immune from break-in, vandalism or theft. With respect to the claims of sub-class (2), whose vehicles had not been broken into, the Court found the damages claimed were only minor annoyances and were therefore, not compensable.

Key Take Away Principle

Although the decision is currently under appeal, if upheld, the dismissal of the Mazda class action is an important signal of the direction Canadian courts are taking against tort claims based purely in economic loss. Viewed together with Ontario courts' decision in Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP (which we wrote about in our April Newsletter), the legal landscape now appears to be increasingly hostile to plaintiffs advancing claims based purely on economic loss from non-dangerous goods. The Cassels Brock Product Liability team will be monitoring the appeal closely.


12. 2014 QCCS 2617 <> [Mazda].  

The Round Up: What Our Group Is Up To (Fall/Winter 2014)

What Our Group Has Been Up To...

  1. Glenn Zakaib and Emily Larose attended the DRI Annual General Meeting in San Francisco from October 22 to 24, 2014. 
  2. Glenn Zakaib, Emily Larose and Peter J. Henein contributed to "Getting the Deal Through – Product Liability 2014," a reference for product liability law that covers 29 jurisdictions worldwide. Glenn, Emily and Peter answered a select list of questions to complete the Canadian chapter of the publication, which covers topics like civil litigation systems, litigation funding, sources of law, and various other matters. To view their chapter, please click here.

    (Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Product Liability 2014 (published in July 2014; contributing editors: Harvey L Kaplan, Gregory L Fowler and Simon Castley of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP). For further information please visit .)

What Our Group Is Up To Now...

  1. Glenn Zakaib, Peter J. Henein, Stefanie A. Holland and Christopher Horkins will be attending the DRI Product Liability Conference in Las Vegas on February 3 to 6, 2014.
  2. Glenn Zakaib will be the Vice-Chair of the Automotive Special Law Group of the Defense Research Institute (DRI).
  3. Peter J. Henein will be chairing the panel discussion on expert evidence and spoliation for the DRI Product Liability International Special Law Group in February 2015.
  4. Glenn Zakaib will be participating in planning the Strictly Automotive seminar to be held in Nashville in November 2015.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Carly Cohen
Erin Craddock
Peter Henein
Christopher Horkins
Emily Larose
Stephanie Voudouris
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.