A recent decision by the Québec Court of Appeal ("Court of Appeal"), Hazan c. Micron Technology Inc. (Hazan),1 is the latest of a recent string of decisions showcasing judicial willingness to take a critical look at the pleaded claims in a proposed class action, and deny authorization of unsubstantiated claims or claims based on untenable interpretations of the Competition Act.2
Background
The plaintiff filed an application for authorization to institute a national class action against several large manufacturers of Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM") chips, a type of semiconductor memory chip used in most computer products that allows information to be electronically stored and rapidly retrieved. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy to increase the price of DRAM chips while restricting production. The foundation for the plaintiff's claim was the defendants' large global market share of DRAM chips. They had no evidence to suggest there was any actual unlawful agreement between the parties.
The plaintiff sought damages and an injunction against the defendants for extra-contractual liability under the Civil Code of Québec, conspiracy in violation of the Competition Act, and misrepresentation under the Consumer Protection Act. The proposed class was all direct and indirect...
