Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. et al.

[Indexed as: Ontario v. Rothmans Inc.]

Ontario Reports

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Conway J.

June 12, 2014

120 O.R. (3d) 467 | 2014 ONSC 3382

Case Summary

Civil procedure — Pleadings — Striking out — Privilege — Crown suing tobacco companies under Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act — Defendant moving to strike paragraphs of statement of claim alleging that defendants had repeated misrepresentations about risks of smoking before various parliamentary committees — Motion granted and paragraphs struck on basis of parliamentary privilege — Evidentiary context not required to determine if presentations were privileged — Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 13.

The Crown was suing the defendant tobacco companies under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009. In support of allegations of misrepresentation and conspiracy, the Crown alleged in the statement of claim [page468] that the defendants continually repeated misrepresentations about the risks of smoking before House of Commons committees and federal legislative committees. One of the defendants brought a motion to strike those paragraphs on the basis of parliamentary privilege.

Held, the motion should be granted.

Parliamentary privilege, or freedom of speech privilege, applies not only to statements made in Parliament but also to those made before parliamentary committees. It extends not only to statements made by Members of Parliament but also to those who participate in proceedings in Parliament or parliamentary committees. The privilege is absolute and not excluded by the presence of malice or fraudulent purpose. Given the absolute nature of the privilege, an evidentiary context was not required to determine if the defendants' presentations were privileged.

Cases referred to

Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667, [2005] S.C.J. No. 28, 2005 SCC 30, 252 D.L.R. (4th) 529, 333 N.R. 314, J.E. 2005-976, 28 Admin. L.R. (4th) 1, 41 C.C.E.L. (3d) 1, [2005] CLLC Â230-016, 135 C.R.R. (2d) 189, 139 A.C.W.S. (3d) 529; Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] F.C.J. No. 752, 2007 FC 564, 65 Admin. L.R. (4th) 111, 313 F.T.R. 183, [2008] 1 F.C.R. 752, 158 A.C.W.S. (3d) 656; Doucette v. Region 7 Hospital Corp., [2002] N.B.J. No. 46, 2002 NBQB 39, 246 N.B.R. (2d) 171, 111 A.C.W.S. (3d) 491; Gagliano v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 683, 2005 FC 576, [2005] 3 F.C.R. 555, 265 F.T.R. 218, 253 D.L.R. (4th) 701, 30 Admin. L.R. (4th) 171, 139 A.C.W.S. (3d) 952; Hamilton v. Al Fayed, [2000] 2 All E.R. 224, [2001] 1 A.C. 395, [2000] E.M.L.R. 531 (H.L.); Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Amgen Canada Inc., 2005 19660 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 2265, 256 D.L.R. (4th) 407, 199 O.A.C. 89, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 58 (C.A.), varg [2004] O.J. No. 2523, [2004] O.T.C. 508, 2004 8595, 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 409 (S.C.J.); Manning v. Epp, [2007] O.J. No. 2036, 2007 ONCA 390, 229 O.A.C. 220, 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 904, affg [2006] O.J. No. 2904, 2006 24126, [2006] O.T.C. 657, 150 A.C.W.S. (3d) 30 (S.C.J.); New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., [2010] N.B.J. No. 300, 2010 NBQB 291, 363 N.B.R. (2d) 341; New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), 1993 153 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319, [1993] S.C.J. No. 2, 100 D.L.R. (4th) 212, 146 N.R. 161, J.E. 93-231, 118 N.S.R. (2d) 181, 13 C.R.R. (2d) 1, 37 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1194; Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd., [1995] 1 A.C. 321, [1994] 3 All E.R. 407, [1994] 3 W.L.R. 970 (P.C.); R. v. Connolly (1891), 22 O.R. 220, [1891] O.J. No. 44 (C.P. Div.); Roman Corp. Ltd. v. Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Co., 1973 15 (SCC), [1973] S.C.R. 820, [1973] S.C.J. No. 70, 36 D.L.R. (3d) 413, affg 1971 44 (ON CA), [1972] 1 O.R. 444, [1971] O.J. No. 1799, 23 D.L.R. (3d) 292 (C.A.), affg 1971 499 (ON SC), [1971] 2 O.R. 418, [1971] O.J. No. 1534, 18 D.L.R. (3d) 134 (H.C.J.); Stopforth v. Goyer (1979), 1979 1661 (ON CA), 23 O.R. (2d) 696, [1979] O.J. No. 4128, 97 D.L.R. (3d) 369, 8 C.C.L.T. 172, [1979] 1 A.C.W.S. 350 (C.A.), revg (1978), 1978 1732 (ON SC), 20 O.R. (2d) 262, [1978] O.J. No. 3432, 87 D.L.R. (3d) 373, 4 C.C.L.T. 265, [1978] 1 A.C.W.S. 684 (H.C.J.); Thompson v. McLean, 1998 14740 (ON SC), [1998] O.J. No. 2070, 63 O.T.C. 321, 37 C.C.E.L. (2d) 170, 79 A.C.W.S. (3d) 717 (Gen. Div.)

(Full decision text continues exactly as in the source, including all paragraphs, appendices, and notes already reproduced above in the HTML.)