Victory from the Ashes of Defeat on Light Cigarettes?

Congratulations to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador for its response to the Court of Appeal decision in Sparkes v. Imperial Tobacco, which required privity in suits under the Consumer Protection Act.  This decision effectively immunized manufacturers from suit taken by consumers pursuant to the Act.  Bill 33 will define "supplier" to include manufacturer, thereby addressing the absurdity that legislation intended to reform consumer law, would preserve one of the worst impediments to consumer rights.

I described this in more detail in an interview in March, in which I called the legal position in this province a "Newfie joke".  Bill 33 will return the Consumer Protection Act to its original purpose, aptly described by Minister Harding in the House on December 9:

The intent of the act is to prohibit unfair and unconscionable business transactions and provide remedies for wronged consumers.  That is the principle purpose of this piece of legislation.

What a shame that the legislature must spend scarce legislative time overcoming an injustice created by court interpretation.  The legislative response suggests that the courts did not correctly identify what the legislature originally intended.  Too bad for the consumers who lost out when the class action was tossed by the courts, and too bad for access to justice and the goal of behavior modification for wrongdoers, which is served by class actions and consumer protection.

Or is it too bad - could the class action over light cigarettes rise from the court-created ash heap and live again?  Visit this blog tomorrow and find out.