• Background: Jensen and Abesdris, indirect consumers of DRAM chips, alleged that the defendants (Samsung Electronics and others) violated sections 45 and 46 of the Competition Act by conspiring to suppress global DRAM supply and inflate prices between June 1, 2016, and February 1, 2018. They sought $1 billion in compensation for all affected Canadian purchasers.

• Key Issues:

  1. Whether the plaintiffs' pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.
  2. If there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues related to the alleged conspiracy.

• Court's Findings:

  1. The court found the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. Essential elements of the alleged offences under sections 45 and 46 of the Act were not adequately pleaded.
  2. There was no sufficient basis in fact for the existence of the proposed common issues.

• Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Motion Judge's decision to dismiss the motion for class action certification.

This case highlights the stringent requirements for pleading a cause of action in class action suits, especially in the context of alleged conspiracies under competition law.

Financial terms not specified.