The Consumers' Association of Canada v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company et al

The Consumers' Association of Canada v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company et al

On the evidence adduced at the Rule 18A summary trial the trial judge correctly found that the appellants failed to prove that surplus deposit monies or container recycling fees were held in trust or were unlawful or deceptive under consumer protection statutes; the Class Proceedings Act does not shield...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 BCCA 356
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): The Consumers' Association of Canada; Appellant (plaintiff): Bruce Cran; Respondent (defendant): Coca-Cola Bottling Company; Respondent (defendant): Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Pepsi-QTG Canada Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): The Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) Co.; Respondent (defendant): Cott Beverages West Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Gray Beverage Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): The Minute Maid Company Canada Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Buy-Low Foods Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Great Pacific Industries Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Canada Safeway Limited; Respondent (defendant): London Drugs Limited; Respondent (defendant): Shoppers Drug Mart Inc.; Respondent (defendant): H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Ocean Spray International Inc.; Respondent (defendant): 7-Eleven Canada, Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Snapple Beverage Corp.; Respondent (defendant): Sun-Rype Products Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): McCain Foods (Canada); Respondent (defendant): McCain Foods Limited; Respondent (defendant): Motts Canada; Respondent (defendant): Cadbury Beverages Canada; Respondent (defendant): Motts' Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Nestlé Canada Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Campbell Soup Company of Canada; Respondent (defendant): Campbell Soup Company Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Canada Pure Water Company Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Canadian Springs Water Co.; Respondent (defendant): Clearly Canadian Beverage Corp.; Respondent (defendant): Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Dan-D Foods Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Great Western Brewing Company Limited; Respondent (defendant): Kmart Canada Limited; Respondent (defendant): Kootenay Springs Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Procter and Gamble Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Saan Stores Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Tetley Canada Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Wal-Mart Canada Corp.; Respondent (defendant): Zellers Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Encorp Pacific (Canada)
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Intended Class Action Alleging Trusts and Consumer Protection Statutory Claims Arising From Beverage Container Deposit and Recycling Fee Scheme / Appeal From Dismissal After Summary Trial Under Rule 18 a and Costs Ruling; Pre Certification Dismissal Affirmed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and the trial judgment and costs orders affirmed
Legal Topics
Certification, Summary Trial (r.18 A), Costs, Recycling Fees/deposit Scheme, Public Interest Litigation
Source Language
english
Class Actions Trusts Consumer Protection Administrative/regulatory Law Certification Summary Trial (r.18 A) Costs Recycling Fees/deposit Scheme +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Consumers' Association of Canada

Appellant (plaintiff)

Bruce Cran

Appellant (plaintiff)

Coca-Cola Bottling Company

Respondent (defendant)

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Pepsi-QTG Canada Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

The Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada) Co.

Respondent (defendant)

Cott Beverages West Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Gray Beverage Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

The Minute Maid Company Canada Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Buy-Low Foods Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Great Pacific Industries Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Canada Safeway Limited

Respondent (defendant)

London Drugs Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Shoppers Drug Mart Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Ocean Spray International Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

7-Eleven Canada, Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Snapple Beverage Corp.

Respondent (defendant)

Sun-Rype Products Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

McCain Foods (Canada)

Respondent (defendant)

McCain Foods Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Motts Canada

Respondent (defendant)

Cadbury Beverages Canada

Respondent (defendant)

Motts' Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Nestlé Canada Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Campbell Soup Company of Canada

Respondent (defendant)

Campbell Soup Company Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Canada Pure Water Company Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Canadian Springs Water Co.

Respondent (defendant)

Clearly Canadian Beverage Corp.

Respondent (defendant)

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Dan-D Foods Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Great Western Brewing Company Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Kmart Canada Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Kootenay Springs Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Procter and Gamble Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Saan Stores Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Tetley Canada Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

Respondent (defendant)

Zellers Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Encorp Pacific (Canada)

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Intended Class Action Alleging Trusts and Consumer Protection Statutory Claims Arising From Beverage Container Deposit and Recycling Fee Scheme / Appeal From Dismissal After Summary Trial Under Rule 18 a and Costs Ruling; Pre Certification Dismissal Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether surplus deposit monies and non‑refundable recycling fees were held in trust by respondents
  2. 2 Whether container recycling fees were unlawful or in breach of consumer protection statutes
  3. 3 Whether summary trial under R.18A was appropriate to resolve the claims prior to certification

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence adduced at the Rule 18A summary trial the trial judge correctly found that the appellants failed to prove that surplus deposit monies or container recycling fees were held in trust or were unlawful or deceptive under consumer protection statutes; the Class Proceedings Act does not shield pre‑certification plaintiffs from adverse costs and the trial judge properly exercised her discretion to award costs to respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and the trial judgment and costs orders affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondents as ordered below: two defendant groups recover costs on scale three and remaining defendants recover costs on scale two; costs to be paid by The Consumers' Association of Canada (and co‑plaintiff to the extent ordered)