Case # 34282
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd., et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al. (October 17, 2012)
Pros-Sys claimed that Microsoft violated the Competition Act and as a result was able to charge higher prices for some of its products.
Pro-Sys didn’t get its Microsoft products or software licences directly from Microsoft.
Pro-Sys acquired its Microsoft products as “indirect purchasers” from re-sellers or “direct purchasers.”
Pros-Sys accused Microsoft of intentional interference with economic interests and conspiracy.
Pro-Sys launched a class action lawsuit against Microsoft after it was granted by the B.C. Supreme Court.
The B.C. Court of Appeal reversed that ruling and dismissed the class action.
At issue is whether indirect purchasers in Canada have any legal power when it comes to illegal and anti-competitive conduct.
Pros-Sys claimed unjust enrichment and waiver of tort.
Case # 34283
Sun-Rype Products Ltd., et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, et al. (October 17, 2012)
Sun-Rype sued Archer Daniels Midland, claiming it illegally engaged in a secret conspiracy to fix the price of high fructose corn syrup.
Sun-Rype then claimed that Archer Daniels Midland then overcharged the price of high fructose corn syrup.
The overcharge in price was then passed onto the consumer.
The B.C. Supreme Court granted the class action by direct purchasers and consumers against Archer Daniels Midland.
The B.C. Court of Appeal set aside the certification order for the consumers and remitted the direct purchasers’ application to the trial court.
Case # 34617
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Option Consommateurs, et al. (October 17, 2012)