Globe and Mail:
Canada's highest court has sided with the British Columbia government in a landmark ruling that opens the door for the province to sue cigarette makers in an effort to recover billions in health-care costs related to smoking.
The 9-0 decision delivered late Thursday afternoon the Supreme Court of Canada upheld provincial legislation allowing the government to seek damages for health-care costs dating back 50 years as well as future expenses stemming from illnesses resulting from tobacco use.
At the core of the action closely watched by industry giants, public interest groups and other provinces was whether B.C.'s health-care recovery legislation, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, ran afoul of the constitution.
"The Act is constitutionally valid," the court concluded in Thursday's decision, which dismissed the industry challenge and opened the door for similar actions in other provinces.
The B.C. law also makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and illness and limits some of the traditional defences in civil suits. As well, it curtails some traditional defences in civil suits, and it makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease.
That is a bizarre paragraph.
The court released the decision at 4 p.m. EDT. Normally rulings are released at 9:45 a.m. EDT, but Thursday's decision was delayed at the request of cigarette maker Rothams. It wanted the ruling to be made public after stock markets closed.
The act, passed in 1998, authorizes direct legal action by the province to recover health-care costs from leading tobacco companies resulting from what it called "tobacco-related wrongs."
No dollar value has been put on the actual B.C. claim which has yet to be heard but some estimates have suggested that a figure of $10-billion would not be out of place.
Federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh applauded the ruling. In an interview with CTV Newsnet, he said it's "appropriate" and "valid" for the government to be able to sue tobacco companies. He estimated that the claim could go into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
"I think that governments now can pursue the damages that had been wrongfully caused by these companies."
In a ruling handed down in May, 2004, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the legislation after the province changed an earlier ruling from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which sided with the industry.
The B.C. appeal court decision was appealed by members of the Canadian tobacco industry Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., JTI-Macdonald Corp., British American Tobacco, Philip Morris as well as the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.
They argue that the legislation is unconstitutional, contending among other things that the province is overstepping its boundaries by trying to apply provincial legislation to company outside its jurisdiction.
The companies also contend that the new rules of evidence set out in the legislation would stack the deck in favour of the government, thus violating traditional tenets of judicial independence and the rule of law.
At the time of the B.C. court ruling, a spokesman for the association argued that the industry's view is that the lawsuit "makes no legal sense because the manufacture and sale of tobacco in Canada has been regulated and overseen by governments for decades."
The B.C. law is modelled on Florida legislation that resulted in a massive U.S. industry settlement that saw companies agree to pay out to $245-billion (U.S.) to individual states over 25 years to compensate for smoking-related health costs.
Canadian companies have said they will not pursue a similar agreement, arguing that the industry in this country could not withstand the impact of a settlement of that magnitude.
Eight other provinces Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador all intervened in the proceedings.
Right now, both Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador already have legislation in place opening the door for future legal action.
Newfoundland and Labrador's Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, adopted in 2001, is similar to the B.C. legislation. In Ontario, the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Statute Law Amendment Act, 1999 amends the provincial Health Insurance Act to allow the Minister of Health and LongTerm Care to bring an action against "to recover costs incurred to pay for insured services rendered as a result of the person's negligence or wrongful act or omission."
In 2000, Ontario also went to court in New York looking to sue the major tobacco companies for up to $40-billion in health-care costs for treating people suffering from tobacco-related diseases. However, that lawsuit, filed late Wednesday under the Racketeer, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was dismissed on the grounds that a foreign government could not sue in U.S. courts. The lawsuit has not been re-filed in Ontario.
Ka-ching.
Quote:
The B.C. law also makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and illness and limits some of the traditional defences in civil suits. As well, it curtails some traditional defences in civil suits, and it makes it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease.
Wha-wha? How does the ability to sue tobacco companies make it easier to prove a link between smoking and disease (is there anything LEFT to prove?)???
(confuzzled)
As for the ruling itself...well, I can understand their goal, but the government shouldn't make the tobacco companies pay for what their customers buy willingly. After all, they don't put those health warnings on the side of the box/tin for nothing.
If the consumer ends up having bad health due to continuous tobacco consumption, then the tobacco company shouldn't pay the price. The consumer will have paid for it with bad health.
Not to say I like tobacco, naturally.
If the consumer ends up having bad health due to continuous tobacco consumption, then the tobacco company shouldn't pay the price. The consumer will have paid for it with bad health.
Every time a smoker needs a lung transplant, chemotherapy, a trachea installation, or a bypass, I pay for it with income taxes.
Such is the case with socialized healthcare.
What was once personal responsibility becomes someone elses burden.
Conservative mode: off
Liberal mode: on
Maybe US States and Canada can sue Brach's, Hershey, and Mars, for the costs incured by Type 2 (adult onset) diabetes.
Then we can sue Ford, GMC, and Daimler-Chrysler for polluting our atmosphere with that terrible carbon dioxide.
Because it's everybody's fault but mine!
Liberal mode: off
Canadian citizens chose to smoke, and canadian citizens pay taxes to have socialized healthcare, shouldn't the non smoking citizens make the smoking citizens pay more?
Oh wait, they already do that with extra taxes on tobacco products. So the govt. has already recouped the losses through goods taxes, and they want more? Look at the revenue gained through cigarette taxes alone and it is a staggering amount.
This from a nation with extremely liberal marijuana/drug laws.
But it's everyones fault but mine.
Jimro
From a strictly self-centred standpoint, this is nothing but good news. Large sums of money could soon be dumped into the healthcare system, thus raising quality of service, all at no extra cost to me. The only people who have reason to complain are the tobacco companies, and they're still rolling in cash either way.
(is there anything LEFT to prove?)
The tobacco companies would have you believe so, I suspect.
Quote:
From a strictly self-centred standpoint, this is nothing but good news. Large sums of money could soon be dumped into the healthcare system, thus raising quality of service
WAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*ROTFLMAO*
*wipes tears from eyes*
oh wait..you were serious?
Quote:
WAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*ROTFLMAO**wipes tears from eyes*
oh wait..you were serious?
I can take it from this that you know little to nothing about Canadian Healthcare or basic economics?
ooh true and valid point, I forgot we were talking about Canada, in britain that money'd prolly find some excuse to divert somewhere else
Forgot his Ritalin, I suppose.
Quote:
As for the ruling itself...well, I can understand their goal, but the government shouldn't make the tobacco companies pay for what their customers buy willingly. After all, they don't put those health warnings on the side of the box/tin for nothing.
No, UltraSonic, I'll have to correct you. They put those warnings there because the government tells them to. This is true.
Cigarette companies could remove a lot of the dangerous chemicals in their cigarettes. They neglect to do so because that would make the cigarettes less addictive. This is true. Cigarettes are now said to be as addictive as heroin.
These people are BILLIONAIRES. MULTI-BILLIONAIRES. Their bank accounts rival the oil barons. They make money by shamelessly exploiting other people's addictions and destroying their health. If they had even the tiniest sense of moral conscience they wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. This is also true.
Yes, I do believe most cigarette companies actually add nicotine artificially.
Not true, they do add more basic compounds (ammonia) to shift the equillibrium of nicotine to its uncharged (less polar) form to that it will be more lipophilic, ie, cross the "blood brain barrier" more readily. This makes the nicotine in the cigarrette more "potent" so to speak.
Harley, since when is having money a crime? Should the Govt. sue Bill Gates for all the lost revenue due to windows security holes? Just wondering.
Jimro
Quote:
If they had even the tiniest sense of moral conscience they wouldn't dream of doing such a thing.
Tobacco companies got rich in the days before anyone knew tobacco was a health risk. By the time people realized this...well, you know. In any case, tobacco companies wouldn't be this powerful if new customers (aka teenagers) didn't start smoking to begin with.
For those who are addicted it might be too late to stop. But for those who have yet to smoke or chew tobacco...well, here's a simple thing to keep yourself from smoking: don't start.
