Canada: Contested Price-Fixing Class Action Including Indirect Purchasers Certified For First Time By A Canadian Court

On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued the first decision by a Canadian court in a contested case certifying a price-fixing class action on behalf of a class which includes indirect purchasers. In Irving Paper Limited et al. v. Atofina Chemicals Inc. et al., The Honourable Madam Justice Rady certified under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act (the "CPA") a class action on behalf of all persons in Canada (excluding the defendants) who purchased hydrogen peroxide, products containing hydrogen peroxide or products using hydrogen peroxide in Canada between January 1, 1994 and January 5, 2005. If left undisturbed on appeal, the decision could significantly broaden the scope in Ontario for indirect purchaser, price-fixing class actions. It could also mean that class action law in Ontario will be inconsistent with the law and practice in other Canadian jurisdictions (such as British Columbia) where courts have refused to certify proposed indirect purchaser price-fixing class actions and with U.S. federal law which bars indirect purchasers from making damages claims.

The Claim

In Irving Paper, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to, and did in fact, allocate markets, restrict supply and increase the price of hydrogen peroxide in Canada over an 11-year period. The plaintiffs have asserted claims for general and punitive damages based on the common law tort of conspiracy, the statutory cause of action for damages under section 36 of the Competition Act (Canada) and the tort of intentional interference with economic interests. The last of these three causes of action was not pursued at certification.

Hydrogen peroxide is an inorganic chemical, differentiated in grade and concentration, that is used in many different applications as a bleaching or oxidizing agent. The pulp and paper industry, which uses hydrogen peroxide in the pulp bleaching process, is the largest North American consumer of the chemical. Hydrogen peroxide is also used in a wide variety of other industries and applications, including mining, chemical manufacturing, textile bleaching, wastewater treatment and food processing.

As noted, the class in Irving Paper consists of both direct purchasers (i.e., persons who allegedly purchased hydrogen peroxide from one or more of the defendants) and indirect purchasers (i.e., persons who allegedly purchased hydrogen peroxide or products containing or using hydrogen peroxide from someone other than a defendant). As Justice Rady acknowledged, the class is enormous and could conceivably include all residents of Canada.

The Certification Decision

The key issue on the motion for certification was whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated that there was a workable methodology for establishing loss or harm on a class-wide basis, such that harm and damages were "viable and appropriate common issues". Proof of loss or harm is a required element for liability pursuant to both the tort of conspiracy and section 36 of the Competition Act. Without a workable methodology, the need for individualized inquiries to determine liability to each of the millions of class members would make the proposed class action unmanageable and therefore not the preferable procedure or appropriate for certification.

Decisions prior to Irving Paper, in both Ontario and other provinces (such as British Columbia), had denied certification in similar cases on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a methodology for calculating harm on a class-wide basis. In those cases, defendants had argued successfully that (i) the issue of whether indirect purchasers had in fact suffered any loss as a result of any alleged overcharges could not be determined on a class-wide or common basis, and instead required complex and lengthy individual trials to determine whether the alleged overcharges had, in fact, been passed through to each of the indirect purchasers; and (ii) these individual inquiries would overwhelm any common issues, with the result that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The seminal case in Canada on indirect purchaser class actions is the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Chadha v. Bayer Inc. That case involved a proposed class action on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging that the defendant manufacturers had, inter alia, conspired contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act to fix the price of iron oxide pigments – additives used to colour concrete bricks and paving stones used in home construction. In concluding that the proposed class action should not have been certified at first instance, the Court of Appeal found, among other things, that the certification motion judge had erred in certifying liability as a common issue. Noting the "many problems of proof facing the [plaintiffs] with respect to the pass-on issue, including the number of parties in the chain of distribution and the 'multitude of variables' which would affect the endpurchase price of a building", the appellate court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that there was a "method [that] could be used at a trial to prove that all end-purchasers of buildings constructed using some bricks or paving stones that contain the respondents' iron oxide pigment overpaid for the buildings as a result". In the Court's view, the absence of an acceptable methodology meant that individual trials would be needed to establish loss (and therefore liability), with the result that the proposed class action would become unmanageable, and would not therefore be the preferable procedure.

In Irving Paper, Justice Rady relied on two more recent decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal – Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank and Cassano v. The Toronto Dominion Bank – to frame her analysis of the issue. In her view, these two decisions have overtaken Chadha and signal a relaxation of the evidentiary threshold prescribed by Chadha. Among other things, Her Honour interpreted Markson as establishing "that not every class member need have suffered a loss and so it is not necessary to show damages on a class-wide basis". Justice Rady also relied on the Ontario Superior Court's 2004 decision in Hague v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. and the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) as authority for the proposition that she was not required to reconcile the conflicting expert opinions before her regarding the existence of a workable class-wide means to prove liability.

Based on the foregoing, Justice Rady concluded that at the certification stage "[she] need only be satisfied that a methodology may exist for the calculation of damages" and that "attempts to postulate such a methodology" are sufficient [emphasis added]. In her view, the plaintiffs had satisfied this threshold:

"[A]t this stage of the proceedings and on the strength of the evidentiary record as it exists today, I simply am unable to say that [the plaintiffs' expert's] opinion will not be accepted by a court. I am also mindful that the parties have not yet had documentary or oral discovery and I think it quite likely that material produced by both the settling and non-settling defendants will be significantly important to the experts in refining their analysis of damages. It is simply not possible at this stage of the proceeding to determine whose opinion is to be preferred."

In reaching this conclusion, Justice Rady also appears to have taken comfort from her belief that the pass-through issue might not arise at trial and that if it did it was unclear whether it would impact damages.

Justice Rady also pointed to the defendants' failure to identify their own "alternate procedure" to the proposed class action in concluding that a class action was the preferable procedure. Based on her interpretation of the Court of Appeal's decision in Markson, she found that it was not open to the defendants to argue that "no litigation was preferable to a class proceeding".

Discussion and Implications

The Irving Paper decision raises several important issues which may be addressed by the Divisional Court (and, ultimately, by the Ontario Court of Appeal) on the expected appeal from Justice Rady's certification decision. Among other things, Markson and Cassano were very different cases than Irving Paper. Neither Markson nor Cassano was a price-fixing case, and neither involved indirect purchasers or a pass-through issue. Also, in neither case (which were in essence dealing with contractual claims) was damage or loss a constituent element of liability, which it was in Irving Paper. In other words, neither case had to consider the key certification issue in Irving Paper, namely whether the alleged overcharge had, in fact, been passed through to indirect purchasers thereby causing them to suffer damage or loss, and whether the plaintiffs could prove the fact of such damage or loss on a class-wide basis. Further, nothing in Markson or Cassano suggests that the CPA alters the essential elements of causes of action or, more particularly, relieves plaintiffs of the obligation of proving all of the essential elements of liability, which in Irving Paper included the requirement to prove that indirect purchasers in the class have actually suffered damage or loss as a result of the alleged price-fixing conspiracy.

Second, based on her reading of Markson and Cassano, Justice Rady appears to have adopted a more relaxed, less rigorous approach to the determination of whether there is a viable and workable methodology capable of establishing harm on a class-wide basis in indirect purchaser cases. There is no suggestion in either Markson or Cassano, however, that they were intended by the Court of Appeal to "overtake" Chadha or to "relax" the evidentiary requirement prescribed by the Court of Appeal in that decision. The approach in the Irving Paper decision is also at the opposite end of the spectrum from the approach taken in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG, a 2008 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, where that Court followed Chadha and stated:

"In a case such as this where the context is pass through, the court must be persuaded that there is sufficient evidence of the existence of a viable and workable methodology that is capable of relating harm to Class Members. [...] Given the inherent complexities, the scrutiny cannot be superficial. The evidence must establish that the proposed methodology has been developed with some rigour and will be sufficiently robust to accomplish the stated task." [emphasis added]

Third, Justice Rady's comment that the pass-through issue might not arise at trial, or might not affect damages even if it did arise, is difficult to understand in the context of a pricefixing class action where the class includes indirect purchasers, liability to whom is contingent on a finding that the alleged overcharge was, in fact, passed on to them. The decision appears to conflate the question of the availability to the defendants of what is known as the "pass-through defence" (pursuant to which defence defendants argue that direct purchasers suffered no harm because any overcharge paid by them was subsequently passed through in its entirety to indirect purchasers) with the Irving Paper plaintiffs' obligation, in order to discharge their burden of establishing the defendants' liability to them, to prove that the alleged overcharges were actually passed through to and did reach indirect purchasers. This second kind of pass-through will have to be considered by the trial judge and it will impact damages.

Finally, in relying on the defendants' failure to identify "an alternate procedure", Justice Rady appears to have imposed a form of reverse onus on the defendants under the preferable procedure criterion of the test for certification in section 5 of the CPA. This is inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hollick v. Toronto (City), where the Court concluded that, with the exception of the requirement that the pleadings disclose a cause of action, a plaintiff has the onus to demonstrate "some basis in fact" for each of the requirements of the certification test, including preferable procedure.

The long-term impact of the decision in Irving Paper remains to be seen but, as noted above, could potentially be dramatic. Much will depend on any appellate review in this case, as well as on the British Columbia Court of Appeal's pending decision in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.

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.

In association with
Related Video
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.