Copyright 2010, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Competition, Antitrust & Foreign Investment, June 2010

On June 3, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the defendants' application for leave to appeal of the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal (BCCA) in the DRAM class action. In November 2009, the BCCA overturned a lower court decision and certified an alleged price-fixing case involving computer memory chips for both direct and indirect purchasers. The Supreme Court of Canada's denial of leave to appeal means the BCCA decision now stands as the leading appellate authority on the certification of antitrust class action cases in Canada, paving the way for the certification of combined direct and indirect purchaser class actions, especially in international conspiracy cases. Indeed, Ontario and British Columbia courts – relying on the BCCA decision – have recently certified direct and indirect purchaser class actions.

The BCCA decision in DRAM:

  • establishes a relatively low threshold for showing a methodology for establishing harm on a class-wide basis at the certification stage, even in complex indirect purchaser cases;
  • suggests that both liability and damages may be determined at the same time by relying on gains based or restitutionary remedies and with proof of a criminal conviction (including one in the United States);
  • departs from earlier decisions, most notably the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Chadha v. Bayer, which had denied certification in similar circumstances;
  • gives broad scope for the application of the use of aggregate damages to overcome difficulties in establishing harm on a class-wide basis; and
  • gives greater recognition to waiver of tort as a possible cause of action.

To view the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision, click here.

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.