The key facts are set out at the start of the reasons:
[1] For many years, Loblaws, Canada’s largest retailer, purchased clothes from a manufacturer whose factory was in the Rana Plaza, a building in Bangladesh. On April 24, 2013, the Rana Plaza collapsed. 1,130 people died, and 2,520 people were seriously injured. On April 22, 2015, just before the second anniversary of the tragedy, four citizens of Bangladesh commenced a proposed class action in Ontario against Loblaws.
[2] The Plaintiffs are Mohamed Alauddin, Arati Rani Das, and Rehana Khatun, who were among the injured garment workers, and Kashem Ali, whose two sons and a daughter-in-law were garment workers that died in the collapse.
[3] The Plaintiffs’ action is brought pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6. It is against George Weston Limited, Loblaws Companies Limited, Loblaws Inc., and Joe Fresh Apparel Canada Inc. (collectively, “Loblaws”). It is also against Bureau Veritas - Registre International de Classification de Navires et d’Aeronefs SA, Bureau Veritas Consumer Product Services Inc., and Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services (BD) Ltd. (collectively “Bureau Veritas”). Bureau Veritas is a consulting services enterprise that Loblaws had retained to conduct what is known as a “social audit” of factories in Bangladesh, including one of the factories in Rana Plaza.
The decision is lengthy. The first sections deal with jurisdiction and choice of law issues. Other sections deal with limitation periods under the law of Bangladesh and with fiduciary duty claims. The tort law analysis is in paras 390-559. The decision considers the tort law of both Bangladesh (as influenced by English law) and Ontario.
The key tort law decision is that there is no proximity between those killed and injured in the collapse and the defendants. It is not a sufficiently close relationship such that a duty of care should be imposed.
There are Canadian and English decisions dealing with the tort liability of parent corporations for the operations of overseas subsidiaries. This case is factually different, of course, because Loblaws was not the parent corporation of the manufacturer in Bangladesh - just a significant purchaser of its production output.
Given the issues at stake, I will not be surprised if this decision is appealed.
Stephen
--
Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
Faculty of Law, Western University
(519) 661-2111 ext 88433
President, University of Western Ontario Faculty Association
Treasurer and Corporate Secretary, Canadian Association for Legal Ethics
Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
Faculty of Law, Western University
(519) 661-2111 ext 88433
President, University of Western Ontario Faculty Association
Treasurer and Corporate Secretary, Canadian Association for Legal Ethics