Alleged Tuna Price Fixing Conspiracy quashed by court

The court refused to open another can of tuna on the matter.

In a significant decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit that alleged a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian market for canned tuna. The lawsuit claimed that 11 companies, including major tuna producers and their Canadian affiliates, colluded to inflate the price of canned tuna sold across the country.

The US case led to a settlement of nearly $4 million to be issued to recipients

Though neither has admitted any wrongdoing, the companies have agreed to pay nearly $4 million in the class action suit. StarKist is contributing $3.6 million, and Lion Capital is adding the remaining $275,000 for a settlement fund total of $3.8 million, from which class members may be eligible to receive payment

The alleged tuna conspiracy was built on findings from a U.S. antitrust case where Big Tuna was found to have engaged in price fixing from 2011 to 2013. The plaintiff argued that a similar tuna conspiracy took place in Canada, involving the same companies and their affiliates.

However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice initially dismissed the motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion judge ruled that the case did not meet the necessary criteria under Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA).

Specifically, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient material facts to support the claim of a tuna conspiracy in Canada, despite the proven conspiracy in the U.S. The court also determined that the evidence presented focused too heavily on the U.S. market and did not adequately address the impact on Canadian tuna consumers.

Furthermore, the judge concluded that a class action was not the preferable procedure for handling this case, given the lack of common issues among the proposed class members.

The plaintiff appealed the decision, but the Ontario Court of Appeal recently upheld the lower court's ruling in the case of Lilleyman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 2024 ONCA 606. The appeal court rejected the respondents’ argument that the appeal should be quashed on jurisdictional grounds, affirming that it had the authority to hear the appeal.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's assessment that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to link the U.S. conspiracy to the Canadian market. The court noted that the legal standard of "some basis in fact" for the existence of common issues had not been met, as the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Canadian consumers were affected in the same way as U.S. consumers.

Finally, the appeal court concurred with the lower court's finding that a class action was not the best way to proceed, given the absence of common issues across the proposed class.

This decision highlights the challenges of certifying class actions in Canada, especially when the case relies heavily on evidence of tuna conspiracies originating from legal proceedings south of the border without a direct connection to the Canadian tuna market.

The ruling reinforces the importance of presenting clear and concrete evidence that ties alleged misconduct to the specific market in question, a critical requirement for class action certification under Ontario law.