|
Playtex/Schering Plough (Sunscreen)
The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP have filed a class action lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the major manufacturers of sunscreen in Canada, including Playtex and Schering-Plough Canada (“defendants”).
The suit claims that the Defendants deceptively marketed and/or mislabeled their sunscreen products by misrepresenting their protective and useful qualities, resulting in unjust enrichment for the Defendants at the expense of possible danger to consumers.
Juroviesky and Ricci LLP are seeking to pursue statutory and common law remedies against the Defendant for breaches of the Consumer Protection Act.
Counsel Update
Counsel for the Plaintiffs attended a Certification Motion in the matters of Singer v. Schering-Plough and Singer v. Playtex et al. on October 14th through October 16th in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario in front of the Honourable Mr. Justice Strathy.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs made submissions to the court that both cases should be certified as a class action proceeding based on the criteria set out in section 5(1) of the Ontario Class Proceedings Act (“CPA”). Such criteria include:
(a) that the pleadings disclose a cause of action;
(b) that there is an identifiable class of two or more persons that would be represented by the representative plaintiff;
(c) that the claims of the class members raise common issues;
(d) that a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues; and
(e) there is a representative plaintiff who would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, has produced a plan for the proceeding that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members of the proceeding, and does not have an interest in conflict with the interests of other class members.
The Plaintiffs submit that the cases should be certified on the above criteria for the alleged causes of action, including claims under common law negligence, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and restitution, as well as statutory violations under the Food and Drugs Act, the Competition Act, and the Ontario Consumer Protection Act. Counsel for Plaintiffs further submitted that reliance by class members on Defendant’s misleading labeling statements is not a necessary component for liability to be assessed as against the Defendants. Plaintiffs are asking, as part of the relief to class members, for the Defendants to change their labels to be more accurate about the benefits of their product, as well as a restitution of profits rationally related to the Defendants’ misconduct.
The Defendants challenged the Plaintiffs’ submissions in that the Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to satisfy any of the criteria of the certification tests under section 5(1) of the CPA.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Strathy has reserved on his decision. Judgment on this Motion is expected in the coming months. If you have any questions regarding this process or the class action itself, please call 416.481.0718 Ext. 450, and someone from our firm will gladly assist you.
For more information, please email info@jruslaw.com.
|
