C A N A D A PROVINCE OF QUEBEC (Class Action) …lpclex.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Amended-Application-to... · c a n a d a province of quebec district of montreal (class action)

CANADA

PROVINCEOFQUEBECDISTRICTOFMONTREAL

(ClassAction)SUPERIORCOURT

NO:500-06-000888-178 JAMESGOVAN

Applicant

-vs-LOBLAW COMPANIES LIMITED, legal personhaving its head office at 800-22 St. Clair avenueEast, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, M4T2S5andLOBLAWS INC., legal person having its principalestablishment at 400 Sainte-Croix avenue, VilleSt-Laurent, district of Montreal, Province ofQuebec,H4N3L4andGEORGEWESTON LIMITED, legal person havingitsheadofficeat800-22St.ClairavenueEast,CityofToronto,ProvinceofOntario,M4T2S5andWESTONFOODDISTRIBUTIONINC., legalpersonhaving its head office at 800-22 St. Clair avenueEast, City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, M4T2S5andMETRO INC., legal person having its head officeat11011MauriceDuplessisboulevard,districtofMontreal,ProvinceofQuebec,H1C1V6

-2-

AMENDEDAPPLICATIONTOAUTHORIZETHEBRINGINGOFACLASSACTIONANDTOAPPOINT

THESTATUSOFREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFF(ARTICLES571ANDFOLLOWINGC.C.P)

TOONEOFTHEHONOURABLEJUDGESOFTHESUPERIORCOURT,SITTINGINANDFORTHEDISTRICTOFMONTREAL,YOURAPPLICANTSTATESASFOLLOWS:I. GENERALPRESENTATION

1. On October 31st, 2017, the Competition Bureau launched an industry-wide criminalinvestigation concerning a price-fixing scheme involving certain packaged breadproducts sold by Defendants, Applicant disclosing the National Post article titled“Watchdograidsofficesofgroceryretailersinprice-fixingprobe”asExhibitP-1;

andSOBEYS QUEBEC INC., legal person having itshead office at 11281 Albert-Hudon boulevard,districtofMontreal,ProvinceofQuebec,H1G3J5andSOBEYS CAPITAL INCORPORATED, legal personhaving its headoffice at 115King Street, City ofStellarton,ProvinceofNovaScotia,B0K1S0andWAL-MARTCANADACORP., legalpersonhavinga principal establishment at 17000 RouteTranscanada, Kirkland, district of Montreal,ProvinceofQuebec,H9J2M5andCANADA BREAD COMPANY, LIMITED, legalperson having a principal establishment at 3455Francis-Hughesavenue,districtofLaval,ProvinceofQuebec,H7L5A5

Defendants

-3-

2. Thatsameday,theCompetitionBureauinvestigators,accompaniedbyRCMPandlocalpoliceforces,raidedtheDefendants’officesinToronto,Montreal,andStellarton,NovaScotia,aspartofitscriminalinvestigationintoacartelcomposedofthelargestgrocerychainsinCanada,ApplicantdisclosingaFinancialPostarticletitled“CompetitionBureauinvestigatesallegationsofbreadpricefixing”asExhibitP-9;

3. The raidswere conducting after theOntario SuperiorCourt inOttawagranted searchwarrants based on reasonable grounds to believe that certain individuals andcompanies, including theDefendants, had takenpart in activities that contravene theCompetitionAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.C-34;

4. It appears that theDefendantsandothers colluded to fix theprices for thepackagedbreadthattheysellingrocerystoresinQuebecandthroughoutCanada,datingbackto2001;

5. The Defendants had and continue to have a significant impact on competition byartificiallyincreasingthepriceofpackagedbreadingrocerystoresacrossCanada;

6. ItappearsthattheDefendantsengagedinactivitiesprohibitedunderthegeneralrulesofQuebeccivil law,aswellasundersections45and46oftheCompetitionAct,whichprohibits agreements between two or more persons to prevent or unduly lessencompetitionortounreasonablyenhancethepriceofaproduct;

7. Consequently, Applicant wishes to institute a class action on behalf of the followingclassofwhichheisamember,namely:

Class:

All persons, entities, partnerships or organizations resident inCanadawhopurchasedatleastonepackageofbreadfromoneoftheDefendants;

Alternately(orasasubclass),

All persons, entities, partnerships or organizations resident inQuebecwhopurchasedatleastonepackageofbreadfromoneoftheDefendants;

(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“Class”)

II. THEDEFENDANTS

8. Defendant Loblaw Companies Limited (hereinafter “Loblaw Ltd.”) is a publicly tradedcompany(TSE:L)andisasupermarketchainwithover2000storesinCanada,includingLoblaws,Provigo,Maxi,Zehrsandothers;

-4-

9. Loblaw Ltd. is Canada’s largest food distributor and has its head office in Toronto,Ontario,ApplicantdisclosingacopyofanextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesasExhibitP-2;

10. DefendantLoblawsInc.(hereinafter“LoblawsInc.”)isadivisionofLoblawLtd.withanelected domicile and principal establishments in the province of Quebec, ApplicantdisclosingacopyofanextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesasExhibitP-3;

11. DefendantGeorgeWestonLimited (hereinafter“GeorgeWeston”) isapublicly tradedcompany(TSE:WN)andisinthebusinessofprocessinganddistributingfood(includedpackagedbreadunderdifferentbrandnames),ApplicantdisclosingacopyofanextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesasExhibitP-4;

12. During the Class Period, GeorgeWeston ownedDefendantWeston FoodDistributionInc. (hereinafter “Weston Food”), Applicant disclosing en liasse copies of the extractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesandoftheFederalCorporationInformationsheetasExhibitP-5;

13. WestonFoodappearstobeamajorityshareholderofLoblawLtd.,ExhibitP-2;

13.1 George Weston and Weston Food own, distribute and/or sell several brands ofpackaged bread includingWeston, Ready Bake, D’Italiano, Gadou, Gadoua MultiGo,CountryHarvest,AllButGlutenandAce.ThesebrandsaresoldatLoblaws(inwhichtheWestonDefendantshaveaninterest),butwerealsosoldduringtheclassperiodatthegrocerystoresownedand/oroperatedbytheircompetitors(DefendantsMetro,SobeysandWal-Mart);

14. GiventheclosetiesbetweentheDefendantsLoblawsLtd.,LoblawsInc.,GeorgeWestonandWestonFoods,andconsidering thepreceding, theyareall solidarily liable for theactsandomissionsoftheother;

15. DefendantMetroInc.(hereinafter“Metro”),basedoutofMontreal,isapubliclytradedcompany(TSE:MRU)andisthethird largestgrocer inCanada,operatingunderseveralbanners including Metro, Metro Plus, Super C, Food Basics, Adonis and PremièreMoisson,ApplicantdisclosingacopyofanextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesasExhibitP-6;

15.1 Defendants Sobeys Quebec Inc. and Sobeys Capital Incorporated (hereinaftercollectively referred to as “Sobeys”) is Canada’s second largest food retailer,operating under several banners, including IGA, IGA Extra, Sobeys, MarchéBonichoix, Les Marchés Tradition, Foodland, Safeway, Thrifty Food, Price Chopperandothers,ApplicantdisclosingenliassecopiesoftheextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesforSobeysasExhibitP-10;

-5-

15.2 Defendant Wal-Mart Canada Corp. (hereinafter “Wal-Mart”) owns and operates achain of discount stores and supercenters in Quebec and across Canada, ApplicantdisclosingacopyoftheextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesasExhibitP-11. Inthecourseofitsbusiness,Wal-Martsellsgroceryitems,includingpackagedbread;

15.3 DefendantCanadaBreadCompany, Limited (hereinafter “CanadaBread”)hasbeen inbusinessformorethan100yearsandisaleadingmanufacturerandmarketeroffreshandfrozenbakeryproductsacrossQuebecandCanadaunderdifferentbrandsandtrademarks, including POM, Sun-Maid Raisin, Bon Matin and Villagio, ApplicantdisclosingacopyoftheextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesasExhibitP-12;

16. DuringtheClassPeriod,alloftheDefendants,eitherdirectlyorthroughawholly-ownedsubsidiary, agent or affiliate, participated in the sale of substantial quantities ofpackagedbreadthroughoutCanada,includingwithintheprovinceofQuebec;

III. CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE THIS CLASS ACTION AND TO APPOINT THE

STATUSOFREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFF(SECTION575C.C.P.):A) THEFACTSALLEGEDAPPEARTOJUSTIFYTHECONCLUSIONSSOUGHT

17. ApplicantismemberoftheClassonbehalfofwhichhewishestoexerciseaclassactioninlightofthefactthatduringtheClassPeriodhehaspurchasedpackagedbreadfromMetro,ProvigoandLoblaws(includingWestonbrands)intheMontrealregionandhassuffereddamagesasaresultoftheDefendants’anti-competitiveandunlawfulactivities;

18. The Defendants’ cartel was kept a secret and their price-fixing was not known toApplicantatthetimeofhispurchases,norcouldithavebeenknown,eventhroughtheexerciseofreasonablediligence;

19. DuetotheDefendants’anti-competitiveandillegalprice-fixingactivities,theApplicantwasdeprivedofthebenefitofacompetitivemarketandthereforepaidahigherpriceforthepackagesofbreadhehaspurchasedovertheyears;

20. Consequently,theApplicantsuffereddamagescauseddirectlybytheintentionalfaultofDefendants;

21. ThedamagessufferedbyApplicantareequaltothedifferencebetweentheartificiallyinflatedpricethathepaidforpackagedbreadandthepricethatheshouldhavepaidinacompetitivemarketsystem;

22. TheDefendants’violationswereintentional,calculated,maliciousandvexatious;

23. Inthesecircumstances,theApplicant’sclaimfordamagesisjustified;

-6-

B) THE CLAIMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS RAISE IDENTICAL, SIMILAR OR RELATEDISSUESOFLAWORFACT:

24. AllClassmembers,regardlessofwhichoftheDefendantstheycontractedwith,haveacommoninterestbothinprovingthecommissionofunlawfulactivities(thepricefixingofbreadinthepresentcase)byalloftheDefendantsandinmaximizingtheaggregateoftheamountsunlawfullychargedtothembyDefendants;

25. Inthiscase,thelegalandfactualbackgroundsatissuearecommontoallthemembersof the Class, namely whether the Defendants unlawfully engaged in price fixing andwhethertheDefendantscreatedabreadcartelinCanada;

26. The claims of every member of the Class are founded on very similar facts to theApplicant’sclaims;

27. EveryClassmemberpurchasedapackageofbreadfromoneoftheDefendantsduringtheclassperiod;

28. ByreasonofDefendants’unlawfulconduct,Applicantandmembersof theClasshavesuffereddamages,whichtheymaycollectivelyclaimagainsttheDefendants;

29. Each Classmember has paid an artificially inflated price for a package of bread as aresultoftheanti-competitiveandcollusiveactivitiesengagedinbytheDefendants;

30. Each Class member has suffered damages equivalent to the difference between theartificiallyinflatedpricepaidforapackageofbreadandthepricethatshouldhavebeenpaidinacompetitivemarketsystem;

31. ThedamagessufferedbytheClassmembersaredirectlyattributabletotheDefendants’anti-competitiveand illegalprice-fixingactivitiesandwith respect towhicheachClassmemberisjustifiedinclaimingdamages;

32. Individual questions, if any, pale by comparison to the numerous common questionsthataresignificanttotheoutcomeofthepresentApplication;

33. TherecoursesoftheClassmembersraiseidentical,similarorrelatedquestionsoffactorlaw,namely:

a) Did the Defendants conspire, coalesce, or enter into any agreement orarrangement that unduly restricts competition in the sale of packaged breadand,ifso,duringwhatperioddidthiscartelhaveitseffectsonClassmembers?

b) Does the participation of the Defendants in the cartel constitute a faulttriggeringtheirsolidaryliabilitytoClassmembers?

c) Has the effect of the cartel been an increase in the price paid in Canada

-7-

(alternately in Quebec) for the purchase of the packaged bread sold byDefendants and, if so, does the increase constitute a damage for each Classmember?

d) WhatisthetotalamountofdamagessufferedbyallClassmembers?

e) IstheDefendants’solidaryliabilitytriggeredwithrespecttothefollowingcostsincurredortobeincurredonbehalfofClassmembersinpresentmatter:

-thecostsofinvestigation;

-theextrajudicialfeesofcounselfortheApplicant,PlaintiffandClassmembers;and

-theextrajudicialdisbursementsbycounselfortheApplicant,PlaintiffandClassmembers?

C) THECOMPOSITIONOFTHECLASS

34. The compositionof theClassmakes it difficult or impracticable to apply the rules formandatestotakepartinjudicialproceedingsonbehalfofothersorforconsolidationofproceedings;

35. Combined, during the class period the Defendants undoubtedly have soldmillions ofpackagesofbreadtoClassmembersacrosstheprovinceofQuebecandCanadawhilethecartelexisted;

36. In its 2016Annual Report,Metro boasts that its annual sales totalledmore than $12billion,ApplicantdisclosingExhibitP-7.LoblawLtd.reportedmorethan$45.3billioninsales in its 2016 Annual Report, Applicant disclosing Exhibit P-8. Combined, theDefendantshavegeneratedsales inthehundredsofbillionsofdollarsduringtheclassperiod;

37. ThenumberofpersonsincludedintheClassislikelyinthemillions(manymembersmayhaveclaimsagainstmultipleDefendants);

38. The names and addresses of all persons included in the Class are not known to theApplicant, however, somemaybe in thepossessionof theDefendants (through theirvariousloyaltyprogramswhichwouldhavestoredpurchasedata);

39. ClassmembersareverynumerousandaredispersedacrossCanadaandelsewhere;

40. Thesefactsdemonstratethatitwouldbeimpractical,ifnotimpossible,tocontacteachandeveryClassmembertoobtainmandatesandtojointheminoneaction;

-8-

41. In these circumstances, a class action is theonly appropriate procedure for all of themembers of theClass to effectively pursue their respective rights andhave access tojusticewithoutoverburdeningthecourtsystem;

D) THECLASSMEMBERREQUESTINGTOBEAPPOINTEDASREPRESENTATIVEPLAINTIFFISIN

APOSITIONTOPROPERLYREPRESENTTHECLASSMEMBERS

42. Applicantrequeststhathebeappointedthestatusofrepresentativeplaintiff;

43. ApplicantsisamemberoftheClass;

44. Applicant learnt about theCompetitionBureau’s criminal investigation into thebreadcartelwhenhecameacrossanewsarticleonline;

45. Prior to initiating the present class action, itwas obvious to Applicant that there arelikelymillionsofothervictimsofthebreadcartel;

46. Applicantmandatedhis attorneys to take thepresent actiononhis behalf and in theinterestoftheClassmembers,becausehe isawarethattheyhaveexperience inclassactionsandareprosecutingotherprice-fixingclassactionsinCanada;

47. As for identifying other Classmembers, Applicants draws certain inferences from thesituation, and thisbasedon thenumberof theDefendants’ grocery stores inQuebecand across Canada. Applicant realizes that by all accounts, there is a very importantnumber of Class members that find themselves in an identical situation, and that itwouldnotbeusefulforhimtoattempttoidentifythemgiventheirsheernumber;

48. ApplicantwantstoholdDefendantsaccountablefortheirmisconductandistakingthisactionsothatheandtheClassmemberscanrecoversumsoverpaidasaresultoftheDefendants’collusionandprice-fixing;

49. Applicant is in the process of completing his studies in software engineering. Heunderstands what his role would entail as representative plaintiff and is ready andavailabletomanageanddirectthepresentactionintheinterestofthemembersoftheClassthathewishestorepresent;

50. Applicantisdeterminedtoleadthepresentdossieruntilafinalresolutionofthematter,thewholeforthebenefitoftheClass,aswellastodedicatethetimenecessaryforthepresentactionandtocollaboratewithhisattorneys;

51. Applicanthasthecapacityand interest to fairlyandadequatelyprotectandrepresenttheinterestoftheClassmembers;

52. Applicants has given themandate to his attorneys to obtain all relevant informationwith respect to the present action and intends to continue to keep informed of all

-9-

developments;

53. With the assistance of his attorneys, Applicant will collaborate with other Classmembersandkeeptheminformed;

54. Applicant is accessible to Classmembers, as are his attorneyswhohave user-friendlywebsites and are active on social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Twitter andFacebook;

55. Applicantisingoodfaithandhasinstitutedthisactionforthesolepurposeofhavinghisrights,aswellas therightsofotherClassmembers, recognizedandprotectedso thattheymaybecompensatedforthedamagesthattheyhavesufferedasaconsequenceofDefendants’unlawfulconduct;

56. ApplicanthasreadthisApplicationpriortoitscourtfilingandreviewedtheexhibits insupportthereof;

57. Applicantunderstandsthenatureoftheaction;

58. Applicant’sinterestsarenotantagonistictothoseofothermembersoftheClass;

59. Applicant’s interest and competence are such that the present class action couldproceedfairly;

IV. DAMAGES

60. During the Class Period, it is safe to assume that the Defendants have generatedaggregateamountsinthemillionsofdollars(atleast),whileintentionallyviolatingprice-fixinglaws;

61. AlloftheDefendants’misconductisreprehensibleandtothedetrimentofunsuspectingClassmembers;

62. AlloftheDefendantsmustbeheldaccountableforthebreachofobligations imposedonthembylegislationinCanadaandQuebec,including:

a) TheCompetitionAct,notablysections45and46;and

b) TheCivilCodeofQuebec,notablyarticles6,7,and1457.

63. Inlightoftheforegoing,thefollowingdamagesmaybeclaimedagainsttheDefendants:

a) compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined, on account of thedamagessuffered.

-10-

V. NATUREOFTHEACTIONANDCONCLUSIONSSOUGHT

64. TheactionthattheApplicantwishestoinstituteonbehalfofthemembersoftheClassisanactionindamagesandforadeclaratoryjudgmentofextracontractualcivilliability;

65. The conclusions that the Applicant wishes to introduce by way of an originatingapplicationare:

GRANTtheRepresentativePlaintiff’sactionagainstDefendantsonbehalfofalltheClassmembers;

DECLAREtheDefendantsliableforthedamagessufferedbytheRepresentativePlaintiffandeachoftheClassmembers;

CONDEMN theDefendants,solidarily,topaytheRepresentativePlaintiffandtheClassmembersanamountequal to the sumof theDefendants’ revenuesgeneratedby theartificially inflatedportionof the salepriceof thepackagedbread they sell inCanada(alternatelyinQuebec),andORDERcollectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN the Defendants, solidarily, to pay the costs incurred for any investigationnecessarytoestablishtheirliabilityinthepresentproceeding,includingtheextrajudicialclass counsel fees and extrajudicial disbursements, including expert fees, andORDERcollectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN theDefendants, solidarily, topay interestand theadditional indemnityontheabovesumsaccordingtolawfromthedateofserviceoftheApplicationtoAuthorizetheBringingofaClassAction;

ORDERtheDefendants,solidarily,todepositintheofficeofthisCourtthetotalityofthesumswhichformspartofthecollectiverecovery,withinterestandcosts;

ORDER that the claims of individual Class members be the object of collectiveliquidationiftheproofpermitsandalternately,byindividualliquidation;

CONDEMNtheDefendantstobearthecostsofthepresentactionincludingthecostofnotices,thecostofmanagementofclaimsandthecostsofexperts,ifany,includingthecostsofexpertsrequiredtoestablishtheamountofthecollectiverecoveryorders;

RENDERanyotherorderthatthisHonourableCourtshalldetermine;

66. The interests of justice favour that this Application be granted in accordancewith itsconclusions;

VI. JURISDICTION

67. TheApplicantsuggeststhatthisclassactionbeexercisedbeforetheSuperiorCourtof

-11-

theprovinceofQuebec,inthedistrictofMontreal,forthefollowingreasons:

a) ThereexistsarealandsubstantialconnectionbetweentheprovinceofQuebecandthedamagessufferedbyApplicantandClassmembers;

b) A great number of the Class members, including the Applicant, reside in thedistrictofMontreal;

c) The Defendants own and operate many grocery stores in the district ofMontreal;

VII. NATIONALCLASS

68. The Applicant wishes to represent a national class before the Superior Court of theprovinceofQuebec(subsidiarilyaprovincialclass),forthefollowingreasons:

a) MetroandSobeysQuebecInc.havetheirheadofficesinthedistrictofMontreal,intheprovinceofQuebec,ExhibitP-6andExhibitP-10;

b) LoblawsInc.hasitsprincipalestablishmentandelecteddomicileat400St-Croixavenue,inthedistrictofMontreal,intheprovinceofQuebec,ExhibitP-3.Wal-Marthasitsprincipalestablishmentat17000RouteTranscanada,inthedistrictof Montreal, in the province of Quebec, Exhibit P-11. Canada Bread has itsprincipalestablishmentat3455Francis-Hughesavenue,districtof Laval, in theprovinceofQuebec,ExhibitP-12;

c) Quebec’s Court of Appeal has already authorized a multi-jurisdictional classactioninsimilarcircumstances;

d) Under section 36 of the Competition Act, private parties can commence legalaction in the Federal Court or in a provincial court of superior jurisdiction torecoverlossesordamagesincurredasaresultofconductcontrarytosection45of the Competition Act. Considering that the Competition Act is a federallegislationthat is in forceacrossCanada,anydecisionbytheSuperiorCourtofQuebecconcerningsection45oftheCompetitionActcouldpotentiallyapplyandbeenforceduniformlyacrossCanada,shouldanationalclassbeauthorized;

FORTHESEREASONS,MAYITPLEASETHECOURT:

GRANTthepresentapplication;

AUTHORIZE the bringing of a class action in the form of an originating application indamagesanddeclaratoryjudgment;

APPOINTtheApplicantthestatusofrepresentativeplaintiffofthepersonsincludedintheClasshereindescribedas:

-12-

Class:

All persons, entities, partnerships or organizations resident inCanadawhopurchasedatleastonepackageofbreadfromoneoftheDefendants;

Alternately(orasasubclass),

All persons, entities, partnerships or organizations resident inQuebecwhopurchasedatleastonepackageofbreadfromoneoftheDefendants;

(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“Class”)

DECLAREthenatureoftheactiontobeoneofextracontractualcivilliability;

IDENTIFY the principle questions of fact and law to be treated collectively as thefollowing:

a) Did the Defendants conspire, coalesce, or enter into any agreement orarrangement that unduly restricts competition in the sale of packagedbread and, if so, during what period did this cartel have its effects onClassmembers?

b) Does theparticipationof theDefendants in the cartel constitutea faulttriggeringtheirsolidaryliabilitytoClassmembers?

c) HastheeffectofthecartelbeenanincreaseinthepricepaidinCanada(alternately inQuebec) for thepurchaseof thepackagedbread sold byDefendants and, if so, does the increase constitute a damage for eachClassmember?

d) WhatisthetotalamountofdamagessufferedbyallClassmembers?

e) IstheDefendants’solidaryliabilitytriggeredwithrespecttothefollowingcosts incurredor to be incurredonbehalf of Classmembers in presentmatter:

-thecostsofinvestigation;

- the extrajudicial fees of counsel for the Applicant, Plaintiff and Classmembers;and

- the extrajudicial disbursements by counsel for the Applicant, PlaintiffandClassmembers?

-13-

IDENTIFY the conclusions sought by the class action to be instituted as being thefollowing:

GRANT theRepresentativePlaintiff’sactionagainstDefendantsonbehalfofalltheClassmembers;

DECLAREtheDefendantsliableforthedamagessufferedbytheRepresentativePlaintiffandeachoftheClassmembers;

CONDEMNtheDefendants,solidarily,topaytheRepresentativePlaintiffandtheClass members an amount equal to the sum of the Defendants’ revenuesgenerated by the artificially inflated portion of the sale price of the packagedbreadtheysellinCanada(alternatelyinQuebec),andORDERcollectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN the Defendants, solidarily, to pay the costs incurred for anyinvestigation necessary to establish their liability in the present proceeding,including the extrajudicial class counsel fees and extrajudicial disbursements,includingexpertfees,andORDERcollectiverecoveryofthesesums;

CONDEMN the Defendants, solidarily, to pay interest and the additionalindemnityon theabovesumsaccording to law fromthedateof serviceof theApplicationtoAuthorizetheBringingofaClassAction;

ORDER the Defendants, solidarily, to deposit in the office of this Court thetotalityofthesumswhichformspartofthecollectiverecovery,withinterestandcosts;

ORDER that the claims of individual Classmembers be the object of collectiveliquidationiftheproofpermitsandalternately,byindividualliquidation;

CONDEMNtheDefendantstobearthecostsofthepresentactionincludingthecostofnotices,thecostofmanagementofclaimsandthecostsofexperts,ifany,includingthecostsofexpertsrequiredtoestablishtheamountofthecollectiverecoveryorders;


DECLARE that all members of the Class that have not requested their exclusion, bebound by any judgement to be rendered on the class action to be instituted in themannerprovidedforbythelaw;

FIX the delay of exclusion at thirty (30) days from the date of the publication of thenotice to the members, date upon which the members of the Class that have notexercised their means of exclusion will be bound by any judgement to be renderedherein;

-14-

ORDER the publication of a notice to the members of the Class in accordance witharticle579C.C.P.withinsixty(60)daysfromthejudgementtoberenderedhereininthe“News” sections of the Saturday editions of the MONTREAL GAZETTE, Le Journal deMontréal,theNationalPostandtheGlobeandMail;

ORDER that said notice be published on the Defendants’ various websites, Facebookpages and Twitter accounts, in a conspicuous place, with a link stating “NoticeConcerningtheBreadCartelClassAction”;

ORDER thatDefendantsdisseminatesaidnoticeviaapaidFacebookNoticeCampaign,for a period of twenty (20) days, with a minimum budget of $20,000.00 before anyapplicabletaxes,withparameterstobedeterminedbytheCourt;

ORDERtheDefendantstosendanAbbreviatedNoticebye-mailtoeachClassmember,totheirlastknowne-mailaddress,withthesubjectline“NoticeofaClassAction”;

ORDER theDefendantsand their representatives to supplyclasscounsel,within thirty(30) days of the judgment renderedherein, all lists in their possessionor under theircontrolpermitting to identifyClassmembers, including theirnames,addresses,phonenumbersandemailaddresses;


THEWHOLEwithcostsincludingpublicationfees.

Montréal,November2nd,2017

(s)LPCAvocatInc.

LPCAVOCATINC.MeJoeyZukranCo-counselforApplicantJamesGovan

Montréal,November2nd,2017(s)RennoVathilakisInc.

RENNOVATHILAKISINC.MeMichaelVathilakisCo-counselforApplicantJamesGovan

-15-

SUMMONS(ARTICLES145ANDFOLLOWINGC.C.P)_________________________________

FilingofajudicialapplicationTakenotice that theApplicanthas filed thisApplication forAuthorization to InstituteaClassActionandtoAppointtheStatusofRepresentativePlaintiffintheofficeoftheSuperiorCourtinthejudicialdistrictofMontreal.Defendant'sanswerYoumustanswertheapplicationinwriting,personallyorthroughalawyer,atthecourthouseofMontreal situatedat 1RueNotre-DameE,Montréal,Quebec,H2Y1B6,within15daysofserviceof theApplicationor, if youhavenodomicile, residenceorestablishment inQuébec,within30days.TheanswermustbenotifiedtotheApplicant’slawyeror,iftheApplicantisnotrepresented,totheApplicant.FailuretoanswerIfyoufailtoanswerwithinthetimelimitof15or30days,asapplicable,adefaultjudgementmay be rendered against you without further notice and you may, according to thecircumstances,berequiredtopaythelegalcosts.ContentofanswerInyouranswer,youmuststateyourintentionto:

• negotiateasettlement;• proposemediationtoresolvethedispute;• defend the application and, in the cases required by the Code, cooperate with the

Applicantinpreparingthecaseprotocolthatistogoverntheconductoftheproceeding.Theprotocolmustbefiledwiththecourtofficeinthedistrictspecifiedabovewithin45days after service of the summons or, in family matters or if you have no domicile,residenceorestablishmentinQuébec,within3monthsafterservice;

• proposeasettlementconference.Theanswertothesummonsmustincludeyourcontactinformationand,ifyouarerepresentedbyalawyer,thelawyer'snameandcontactinformation.ChangeofjudicialdistrictYoumay ask the court to refer theoriginatingApplication to thedistrict of yourdomicile orresidence, or of your elected domicile or the district designated by an agreement with theplaintiff.

-16-

If the application pertains to an employment contract, consumer contract or insurancecontract, or to the exercise of a hypothecary right on an immovable serving as your mainresidence,andifyouaretheemployee,consumer,insuredperson,beneficiaryoftheinsurancecontractorhypothecarydebtor,youmayask fora referral to thedistrictofyourdomicileorresidence or the district where the immovable is situated or the loss occurred. The requestmust be filedwith the special clerk of the district of territorial jurisdiction after it has beennotified to the other parties and to the office of the court already seized of the originatingapplication.TransferofapplicationtoSmallClaimsDivisionIfyouqualify toactasaplaintiffunder therulesgoverning therecoveryofsmallclaims,youmayalsocontacttheclerkofthecourttorequestthattheapplicationbeprocessedaccordingto those rules. If you make this request, the plaintiff's legal costs will not exceed thoseprescribedfortherecoveryofsmallclaims.CallingtoacasemanagementconferenceWithin20daysafter thecaseprotocolmentionedabove is filed, thecourtmaycall you toacasemanagementconferencetoensuretheorderlyprogressoftheproceeding.Failingthis,theprotocolispresumedtobeaccepted.ExhibitssupportingtheapplicationIn support of theApplication toAuthorize the Bringing of a Class Action and toAppoint theStatusofRepresentativePlaintiff,theApplicantintendstousethefollowingexhibits:ExhibitP-1: CopyofNationalPostarticletitled“Watchdograidsofficesofgroceryretailersin

price-fixingprobe”;ExhibitP-2: Copy of an extract from theRegistraire des entreprises for Loblaw Companies

Ltd.;ExhibitP-3: CopyofanextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesforLoblawsInc.;ExhibitP-4: CopyofanextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesforGeorgeWeston;ExhibitP-5: En liasse copies of the extract from theRegistraire des entreprises and of the

FederalCorporationInformationsheetforWestonFoodDistributionInc.;ExhibitP-6: CopyofanextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesforMetroInc.;ExhibitP-7: CopyofMetroInc.’s2016AnnualReport;

-17-

ExhibitP-8: CopyofLoblawCompaniesLtd.2016AnnualReport;ExhibitP-9: CopyofFinancialPostarticletitled“CompetitionBureauinvestigatesallegations

ofbreadpricefixing”;ExhibitP-10: En liasse,copiesof theextracts fromtheRegistrairedesentreprises forSobeys

QuebecInc.andforSobeysCapitalIncorporated;ExhibitP-11: Copy of the extract from theRegistraire des entreprises forWal-Mart Canada

Corp.;ExhibitP-12: CopyoftheextractfromtheRegistrairedesentreprisesCanadaBreadCompany,

Limited;Theseexhibitsareavailableonrequest.NoticeofpresentationofanapplicationIftheapplicationisanapplicationinthecourseofaproceedingoranapplicationunderBookIII,V,exceptinganapplication in familymattersmentioned inarticle409,orVIof theCode, theestablishment of a case protocol is not required; however, the application must beaccompaniedbyanoticestatingthedateandtimeitistobepresented. Montréal,November2nd,2017

(s)LPCAvocatInc.


Montréal,November2nd,2017(s)RennoVathilakisInc.


NOTICEOFPRESENTATION(articles146and574al.2C.P.C.)

TO: LOBLAWCOMPANIESLIMITED

800-22St.ClairavenueEastToronto,Ontario,M4T2S5Defendant

WESTONFOODDISTRIBUTIONINC.800-22St.ClairavenueEastToronto,Ontario,M4T2S5Defendant

METROINC.,11011MauriceDuplessisboulevardMontreal,Quebec,H1C1V6DefendantSOBEYSQUEBECINC.11281Albert-HudonboulevardMontreal,Quebec,H1G3J5DefendantSOBEYSCAPITALINCORPORATED115KingStreetStellarton,NovaScotia,B0K1S0DefendantWAL-MARTCANADACORP.17000RouteTranscanadaKirkland,Quebec,H9J2M5DefendantCANADABREADCOMPANY,LIMITED3455Francis-HughesavenueLaval,Quebec,H7L5A5Defendant

TAKENOTICE thatApplicant’sAmendedApplication toAuthorize the Bringing of a ClassAction and toAppoint the Status of Representative Plaintiff will be presented before the Superior Court at 1 RueNotre-Dame E, Montréal, Quebec, H2Y 1B6, on the date set by the coordinator of the Class Actionchamber.GOVERNYOURSELVESACCORDINGLY. Montréal,November2nd,2017

(s)LPCAvocatInc.


Montréal,November2nd,2017

(s)RennoVathilakisInc.


LOBLAWSINC.400Sainte-CroixavenueVilleSt-Laurent,Quebec,H4N3L4Defendant

GEORGEWESTONLIMITED800-22St.ClairavenueEastToronto,Ontario,M4T2S5Defendant

NO: 5

00-06-00

0888

-178

(Cla

ss A

ctio

n)

SUPE

RIO

R C

OU

RT

PR

OVI

NC

E O

F Q

UEB

EC

DIS

TRIC

T O

F M

ON

TREA

L

JAM

ES G

OVA

N

A

pplic

ant

-vs-

LO

BLA

W C

OM

PAN

IES

LIM

ITED

an

d

LOB

LAW

S IN

C.

and

G

EOR

GE

WES

TON

LIM

ITED

an

d

WES

TON

FO

OD

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

INC

. an

d

MET

RO

INC

. an

d

SOB

EYS

QU

EBEC

INC

. an

d

SOB

EYS

CA

PITA

L IN

CO

RPO

RAT

ED

and

W

AL-

MA

RT

CA

NA

DA

CO

RP.

an

d

CA

NA

DA

BR

EAD

CO

MPA

NY,

LIM

ITED

Def

enda

nts

AM

END

ED A

PPLI

CAT

ION

TO

AU

THO

RIZ

E TH

E B

RIN

GIN

G O

F A

CLA

SS A

CTI

ON

AN

D

TO A

PPO

INT

THE

STAT

US

OF

REP

RES

ENTA

TIVE

PLA

INTI

FF

(AR

TIC

LES

571

AN

D F

OLL

OW

ING

C.C

.P)

OR

IGIN

AL

5800

, bou

leva

rd C

aven

dish

, Sui

te 4

11

Mon

tréa

l (Q

uébe

c) H

4W 2

T5

T: (5

14) 3

79-1

572

• F:

(514

) 221

-444

1 E:

[email protected]

ME

JOEY

ZU

KR

AN

C

OD

E: B

L 60

59

N/D

: JZ-

170

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

C A N A D A PROVINCE OF QUEBEC (Class Action) …lpclex.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Amended-Application-to... · c a n a d a province of quebec district of montreal (class action)