Background:
The respondents claimed Qualcomm engaged in anti-competitive agreements with manufacturers and competitors, using its market power to enforce non-FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing agreements. This conduct allegedly inflated the prices of cellular devices in Canada, harming consumers.

Legal Arguments and Issues:
Key issues involved class action certification under the Class Proceedings Act and Qualcomm's application for summary judgment under Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Competition Act (s. 36, s. 45, s. 46, and s. 61), civil conspiracy, unlawful means tort, and unjust enrichment. Qualcomm argued that the claims lacked sufficient factual basis and were not civilly actionable.

Court's Decision:
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It dismissed the conspiracy claims under the Competition Act and common law due to insufficient pleadings but upheld the certification of claims regarding unlawful means tort, unjust enrichment, and violations under s. 61 of the Competition Act.

Costs and Award:
The document did not specify the total amount of costs or any award in favor of the successful party.