The Canadian Plastic Bag Association (CPBA) has petitioned a British Columbia court to quash a “checkout bag regulation bylaw” passed by the city of Victoria, arguing the municipality does not have the legal authority to enact the rule. Canadian Plastic Bag Ass’n v. City of Victoria, No. S-180740 (S.C.R. British Columbia, filed January 22, 2018). On January 18, 2018, the Victoria City Council adopted a bylaw that prohibits businesses from providing single-use plastic shopping bags to customers and mandating them to charge from C$.15 for paper or C$1 for reusable bags. CPBA alleges that the city’s municipal powers are defined by British Columbia’s Community Charter, Spheres of Concurrent Jurisdiction—Environmental and Wildlife Regulation and the Environmental Management Act; taken together, the group argues, the provincial laws do not authorize individual municipalities to “regulate, prohibit or impose requirement[s]” related to either solid waste management or the sale or dispensing of plastic bags.…
Category Archives Canadian Courts
A Québec court has allowed to proceed a consumer's lawsuit alleging Sunwing Vacations Inc. misrepresented its "Champagne Service" because it served sparkling wine produced outside of the Champagne region of France. Macduff v. Sunwing Vacations Inc., No. 2017 QCCS 4540 (Québec Super. Ct., entered October 11, 2017). Sunwing argues that it uses the terms “champagne service” and “champagne vacation” to denote the level of service its hospitality packages provide rather than referring to a specific beverage served to customers. According to Canada’s National Post, about 1,600 potential class members have joined the lawsuit since it was filed.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has reportedly filed charges against Creation Foods and its vice president Kefir Sadiklar alleging the company sold cheddar cheese falsely labeled as kosher to Jewish summer camps. The agency asserts that Creation Foods edited a digit in the product code to match the code of a cheese product approved as kosher. According to the Toronto Star, the Canadian government has never before brought an enforcement action against anyone accused of misrepresenting kosher food. See Toronto Star, May 9, 2017. Issue 635
Subway has issued a notice of action in Canada against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) following a February broadcast of the network’s “Marketplace” program that claimed DNA testing of the chain’s sandwiches showed its chicken was half processed soy. The sandwich chain is reportedly asking for $210 million in damages for defamation. According to the Toronto Star, Subway asked the CBC to retract the story but decided to file suit after the network refused. Additional details about a U.S. projected class action filed against Subway after the CBC report appear in Issue 627 of this Update. See Fortune, March 17, 2017, Issue 628
An Alberta court has reportedly approved a settlement agreement in a class action stemming from an E. coli outbreak that resulted in the recall of nearly 4 million pounds of beef in Canada and the United States, amounting to the largest meat recall in Canadian history. Harrison v. XL Foods Inc., No. 1203-14727 (Can. Alta. Q.B., order entered February 17, 2016). Under the settlement agreement, the class is open to consumers in Canada and the United States who either purchased XL Foods Inc.’s beef, thereby suffering an economic injury, or consumed it, causing them to contract an illness. Eligible class members can receive a full refund with proof of purchase or CAN $25 without. See CBC News, February 17, 2016. Issue 595
According to a coalition of environmental organizations, service has been effected on the defendants to their court application challenging the legality of the Canadian government’s decision to allow AquaBounty Technologies to commercially produce genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Ecology Action Centre v. Minister of the Env’t, No. T-2114-13 (Fed. Ct., filed December 23, 2014). They contend that Minister of the Environment Leona Aglukkaq and Minister of Health Rona Ambrose failed to assess under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act whether GE salmon “could become invasive, potentially putting ecosystems and species such as wild salmon at risk.” Alleging several statutory and regulatory violations, the organizations seek a declaration that the ministers acted unlawfully and without jurisdiction, their toxicity assessment is invalid and unlawful, or they unlawfully or unreasonably failed to conduct a lawful and complete toxicity assessment. AquaBounty CEO Ron Stotish has reportedly indicated that the legal action is without merit. See Ecology Action Centre…
Two British Columbia residents have reportedly filed individual and putative class action suits against the Canadian meat processor that was forced to recall 1,800 ground beef products in an E. coli contamination outbreak that involved retail chains in the United States and Canada. The class action, filed October 12, 2012, by Erin Thornton in B.C. Supreme Court, names XL Foods Inc. and its owner Nilsson Bros., Inc. as defendants. She alleges that XL Foods was negligent and that both defendants breached disclosure obligations and mishandled the recall. According to news sources, at least 15 people in four provinces have been sickened by the E. coli strain linked to the defendants’ Brooks, Alberta-based plant. Class actions have also apparently been filed in other provinces. U.S. officials reportedly discovered E. coli O157 at the plant on September 3, and the recall began September 16. See The Canadian Press and The Province, October 17,…
An Edmonton, Alberta, resident has filed a putative class action against a beef processor with operations in Alberta and Nebraska, alleging that he became severely ill from consuming the company’s beef, which was recalled in September 2012 due to an E. coli outbreak. Harrison v. XL Foods Inc., No. 1203-14727 (Can. Alta. Q.B., filed October 2, 2012). Seeking to certify province-wide and nationwide classes of plaintiffs “who purchased and/or consumed the Recalled Products,” the plaintiff alleges strict liability, breach of the Fair Trading Act, negligence, waiver of tort/disgorgement, and vicarious liability. He requests punitive and actual damages, as well as non-pecuniary general damages, pecuniary damages, disgorgement of revenues, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. He also seeks a declaration that the recalled products are contaminated. According to news sources, plaintiff Matthew Harrison fell ill after eating allegedly contaminated steak, purchased at a Costco store, at a friend’s house. He was purportedly…
The Canadian Wheat Board, which apparently serves as the marketing organization for western Canadian wheat, durum wheat and barley farmers, has filed a lawsuit against the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in his capacity as Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, alleging that he failed to consult with the board as required by law before “causing to be introduced in Parliament on October 18, 2011,” a bill that would create an open market and essentially eliminate the board’s “exclusive statutory marketing authority in respect of wheat and barley.” The board claims to have “a legal mandate to extract the highest overall returns for farmers by effectively leveraging the powers of the single desk.” According to a news source, the board narrowly approved the legal action; directors elected by farmers, for the most part, supported it, while those appointed by the government voted against it. Opposition farmer Henry Vos, calling…
A British Columbia resident who operates a “cowshare” that produces and distributes raw milk to members has filed a lawsuit against the provincial government challenging a regulation that prohibits the sale of milk that has not been pasteurized. Jongerden d/b/a Home on the Range v. The Queen, No. S-111196 (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, filed February 23, 2011). According to the complaint, the plaintiff has been cited for packaging and distributing raw milk for human consumption and was further cited for contempt when she continued to sell the milk after labeling it as “not for human consumption.” The plaintiff contends that raw milk has beneficial health effects and that the ultra vires regulation has prevented her from obtaining and consuming raw milk from a lawful source.
12
