as we must at this stage, we would not agree that the defendants
had no control over the non-defendants. The point is that they
had control over the market and their intention was to move that
market: Godfrey BCCA, at paras. 238-239.
 The umbrella effect must be taken into account at the certi-
fication stage. The theory of liability rests on the defendants’
alleged cartel activity, creating what the certification judge
described in this case as “supra-competitive prices that enable non-
cartel members to set their prices higher than they otherwise
would have under normal conditions of competition”: Shah v. LG
Chem Ltd.,  O.J. No. 5168, 2015 ONSC 6148 (S.C.J.), at para.
159. If their claims are ultimately proven, the umbrella purchasers
are financial victims of the defendants because of the “umbrella
pricing effects”, a phenomenon that is described in the following
Umbrella effects typically arise when price increases lead to a diversion of
demand to substitute products. Because successful cartels typically reduce
quantities and increase prices, this diversion leads to a substitution away
from the cartels’ products toward substitute products produced by cartel out-
siders . . . [T]he increased demand for substitutes typically leads to higher
prices for the substitute products. Such price increases are called umbrella
effects and may arise either in the same relevant market — for example, in
cases where a cartel covers less than 100 per cent of the firms in that market
— or in neighboring markets.
(See Roman Inderst, Frank P. Maier-Rigaud and Ulrich Shwalbe,
“Umbrella Effects” (2014), 10:3 J. Competition L. & Econ. 739 at
 As the pleadings allege that the defendants were aware of
and intended that the conspiracy would result in the increase in
prices of LIBs and LIB products, the increase in prices across the
market were intended and foreseen. Accordingly, including the
umbrella purchasers would not make the respondents liable for
 The respondents also argue that allowing umbrella
purchasers to claim relief under s. 36 could result in “economic
ripples downstream” of the umbrella purchasers, causing further
concern for indeterminate liability. They give the example of
purchasers of services that rely upon LIB products, who could
claim that they paid more for their services because their service
provider paid more for the LIB products. That is not this case.
The pleadings are specifically limited to those who purchased
LIBs and LIB products during the conspiracy period.
 In summary, even if indeterminate liability is relevant, the
umbrella purchaser claims do not fail s. 5(1)(a) on the basis of