Canada: B.C. Court Of Appeal Certifies Class Action Arising From Multi-Jurisdictional Antitrust Case

Last Updated: November 17 2009

Article by Peter Franklyn , Christopher P. Naudie , Tristram J. Mallett and Jason MacLean

There has been a surge in competition class actions in Canada in recent years, and in most instances, these cases have been brought on the heels of international regulatory investigations in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. However, to date, there have only been a small number of antitrust class actions in Canada that have proceeded to a contested certification motion. In virtually all of these cases, certification was denied, largely on the basis that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a "rigorous" and "workable" expert methodology for establishing loss and liability under the Competition Act on a class-wide basis. However, in the past two years, the courts in Ontario have certified two vertical class actions involving narrow and (arguably) direct classes. More recently, in September, the Ontario Superior Court certified a consolidated class of direct and indirect purchasers in the hydrogen peroxide case. However, these decisions were issued by lower or intermediate courts, and there has not been a significant appellate decision in Canada on class certification in the antitrust field for a number of years.

On November 12, 2009, in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG, the B.C. Court of Appeal released its decision in the DRAM case. In DRAM, the plaintiffs had launched class proceedings in B.C. in conjunction with parallel class proceedings in the U.S. relating to the ongoing global regulatory and criminal investigations into the pricing of computer memory components. In its decision, the B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously granted certification of a consolidated direct and indirect class of DRAM purchasers in B.C. This decision is particularly significant given that this is the first appellate decision in Canada that has certified a class action in an antitrust case on a contested basis. The Court concluded that there were a number of common issues relating to the existence of a potential conspiracy, and that it was possible to establish liability on a class-wide basis in reliance on the statistical aggregation provisions contained in provincial class proceedings legislation as well as "the admissions inherent in the guilty pleas and the plea agreements in the U.S. criminal proceedings." The Court also found that the certification judge had erred in applying "rigorous scrutiny" to the plaintiff's expert evidence, on the reasoning that the plaintiff only needed to show "a credible or plausible methodology" using regression techniques which "in theory" might be able to address loss on a class-wide basis.

On its face, the Court's decision represents a marked departure from the existing law on antitrust class certification in Canada. Given the existence of conflict at the appellate level in Ontario and B.C., this case is arguably ripe for review by the Supreme Court of Canada. But in the interim, this decision will almost certainly lead to more antitrust class proceedings in Canada in international conspiracy cases, particularly where there have been guilty pleas in the U.S. and where there are parallel class proceedings in the U.S.


Antitrust class actions are relatively new to Canada. While there has been a private right of action in Canada's Competition Act since the 1970s, private actions only emerged as a significant influence on Canada's competition laws in the 1990s, following the gradual adoption of provincial class proceedings legislation across Canada. Since that time, private plaintiffs have initiated a number of competition class actions in respect of a wide-range of vertical and horizontal anti-competitive conduct, including both domestic and foreign conduct. In most of these cases, however, plaintiffs have launched class proceedings on the heels of an ongoing global price-fixing investigation, often in close coordination with U.S. plaintiffs who were pursuing parallel class proceedings before federal and state courts.

Plaintiffs in Canada have been successful in some of these cases in negotiating high-profile settlements, and the settling parties have consented to certification for the purpose of implementing the settlement. Outside the settlement context, however, there have only been a small number of cases that have proceeded to a contested motion on the merits of certification. And, in contrast to the U.S. experience thus far, the courts in Canada have generally held that the test for certification on a contested basis is more demanding than where certification is sought to implement a settlement on consent. 

The Test For Certification In Canada

While the test for class certification in Canada varies by province, the test in the common law provinces is generally similar to the test for certification under Federal Rule 23 in the U.S., albeit with some important differences (such as the absence of a predominance or typicality requirement). In particular, plaintiffs in Canada must demonstrate the existence of a viable cause of action, an identifiable class, meaningful common issues and an adequate representative plaintiff. But in the place of the U.S. predominance requirement, plaintiffs in Canada must also demonstrate that a class proceeding is the "preferable procedure" for trying the common issues.

The courts in Canada have underscored the importance of applying the test for certification under class proceedings legislation in a flexible and purposive manner which reflects the underlying goals of class proceedings legislation, namely, access to justice, judicial economy and behaviour modification. Notwithstanding this flexible and purposive approach to certification, plaintiffs in Canada have for the most part experienced significant difficulty in seeking to certify antitrust class actions in Canada. In short, in nearly all of those cases that have proceeded to a contested certification motion in Canada, the courts have rejected certification, largely on the basis that the plaintiffs had failed to adduce sufficient expert evidence that there was a "viable" and "workable" economic methodology for ascertaining the core issues of loss and liability on a class-wide basis, particularly where indirect claims are involved and the alleged price-fixing overcharge may have been absorbed or "passed-on" to other participants within the applicable distribution chain.

For instance, in the leading appellate case to date, Chadha v. Bayer Inc. (Chadha), decided in 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied certification of a proposed antitrust class action on behalf of indirect purchasers relating to an alleged price-fixing conspiracy for the distribution of iron oxide. The Court of Appeal in Chadha found that the plaintiff had simply assumed the existence of "passing-on" through the distribution chain and had failed to adduce sufficient evidence that "loss" as a component of liability could be ascertained on a class-wide basis.

A recent and noteworthy exception to the judicial trend of denying certification of class proceedings on contested motions, however, is the decision of the Ontario Superior Court in  Irving Paper Limited v. Atofina Chemicals Inc. (Irving Paper) (please see our Osler Update from September 30, 2009). In Irving Paper, Justice Rady granted certification of a proposed consolidated class of direct and indirect purchasers relating to an alleged price-fixing conspiracy for the distribution of hydrogen peroxide. In granting certification, Justice Rady suggested that the more recent certification law in Ontario appeared to be moving away from Chadha. In particular, she noted that in two recent certification decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal in credit card cases, the Court suggested that a plaintiff may be able to establish "potential liability" on a class-wide basis for certification purposes by reference to the aggregation provisions of the Ontario Class Proceedings Act. Justice Rady found that under this "different approach," the plaintiffs could establish "potential liability" by showing that "the defendants acted unlawfully" and "it is not necessary to show damages on a class-wide basis."

In light of the Ontario Superior Court's radical break with Chadha in its decision in Irving Paper, which will almost certainly be appealed, the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the DRAM case  has assumed even more importance as a bellwether for the direction of Canadian antitrust class proceedings.

The DRAM  Case

DRAM, or dynamic random access memory, is an essential input component of virtually all electronic products used today, including computer mainframes and servers, laptops, automobiles, global positioning systems, cellular phones, cameras and video games. Beginning in 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated investigations and proceedings with respect to DRAM price-fixing in the U.S. In late 2004, a number of defendants in these proceedings reached plea agreements and paid fines for participating in an alleged international conspiracy to fix prices in the DRAM market. In total, to date, the U.S. Department of Justice has collected over US$731 million in fines. Moreover, a number of the defendants have reached significant settlements of direct purchaser class actions in the U.S. By contrast, there have been no pleas in Canada.

In coordination with plaintiffs in the U.S., the plaintiff Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. brought class proceedings in an attempt to certify a consolidated class of direct and indirect purchasers of DRAM chips in British Columbia between April 1, 1999 and June 30, 2002.

At first instance, the B.C. Supreme Court denied certification. In applying similar reasoning employed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Chadha, Justice Masuhara found that the plaintiff failed to adduce a viable expert methodology for dealing with loss and liability on a class-wide basis, particularly given the complex distribution channels for DRAM. Given the plaintiff's failure to establish this critical issue as a common issue, the court found that the plaintiff's case would dissolve into multiple individual trials and therefore lacked "the semblance of a manageable and workable process." The court also found that the representative plaintiff had irreconcilable conflicts with the other putative class members, and expressed considerable doubt as to whether a representative plaintiff could adequately represent a consolidated class of both direct and indirect purchasers in Canada in light of the serious conflicts of interest relating to the incidence of overcharge.

The British Columbia Court Of Appeal Grants Certification

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal reversed the British Columbia Supreme Court's denial of certification. The Court confirmed that the provisions of the Class Proceedings Act permit the use of statistical evidence to assess an aggregate monetary award. The Court also found that the defendants' class-wide liability can reasonably be determined on common evidence and on the basis of "the admissions inherent in the guilty pleas and the plea agreements in the U.S. criminal proceedings." In particular, the Court held that at the certification stage the plaintiff is required to show only a credible or plausible methodology for the determination of damages on a class-wide basis using regression techniques which "in theory" might be able to address loss on a class-wide basis.

Moreover, the Court concluded that at the class certification stage, the plaintiff's expert evidence should not be subjected to the same "rigorous scrutiny" as it would be at trial. Rather, the gatekeeper role of the court at the certification stage is to apply a reduced level of scrutiny in assessing whether the expert evidence adduced meets the "low threshold" required to show that damages can be established on a class-wide basis on common evidence. In conformity with the liberal and purposive interpretation that must be given to the provisions of the Class Proceedings Act, the Court noted that the plaintiff's evidentiary burden is not an onerous one and requires only "a minimum evidentiary basis."

The Court also found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure in this case, noting that despite the complexities involved in the marketing and distribution of DRAM, the Class Proceedings Act is a powerful and flexible procedural statute that provides case management judges with the appropriate tools to manage such complexity. Finally, the Court held that the representative plaintiff is, at least at this stage of the proceedings, a suitable representative plaintiff in light of its common interest with all class members in establishing the defendant companies' wrongful conduct and the aggregate amount of their alleged unlawful gain.   

The Significance Of DRAM

The British Columbia Court of Appeal's unanimous decision is significant because it marks the first time that a senior appellate court in Canada has granted the certification of an antitrust class action on a contested basis. But on its face, the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision appears to represent a marked departure from the existing law in Canada. In prior cases, numerous courts have held that the aggregation provisions in class proceedings legislation were intended to assist with the valuation of damages at trial once liability has already been determined on the merits, and cannot be used to establish the existence of class-wide issues at the certification stage. In addition, the Court's apparent reliance on the existence of pleas in the U.S. to establish common issues overlooks the substantive differences between the conspiracy offences in Canada and in the U.S. Furthermore, the Court appears to have endorsed a more deferential and less "rigorous" approach to the assessment of the plaintiff's proposed expert methodologies that is difficult to reconcile with the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Chadha and the recent case law on class certification in the U.S. Finally, the Court appears to have overlooked the inherent conflicts associated with a class proceeding that includes direct and indirect purchasers. 

Given the facial conflict between the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision in the DRAM case and the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision Chadha, this area of law may be ripe for review by the Supreme Court of Canada. But in the interim, the Court's decision in the DRAM case  will likely encourage the pursuit of further antitrust class proceedings in Canada, particularly in international conspiracy cases.

A copy of the full decision in the DRAM case is available upon request. Please contact the authors of this article.

Peter Franklyn is the Chair of the firm's highly regarded Competition/Antitrust Law Group. Christopher Naudie is a partner in the Litigation Department in firm's Toronto office. Tris Mallett is the Managing Partner of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP's Calgary office where he carries on a litigation practice focussed on complex corporate and commercial disputes.

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.