harm to the class can be established on a common basis. They
submit that the economic market conditions identified by Dr.
Reutter would only permit conspirators to increase their own
prices. Those conditions do not establish that the respondents
had the ability to control the pricing decisions of other market
participants. Further, on cross-examination, Dr. Reutter admitted
that the response of non-defendant manufacturers to an alleged
price increase would depend on individual decisions made by each
manufacturer. He acknowledged that non-defendants might
match their competitors’ increased prices, or they might lower or
maintain their existing prices to increase market share. However,
in the respondents’ submission, nowhere in Dr. Reutter’s report
does he explain how the independent pricing decisions of non-defendants can be determined in common with the defendants,
without conducting individual inquiries.
 In addition, the respondents liken the deficiencies in Dr.
Reutter’s evidence to those identified in Ewert v. Nippon Yusen
Kabushiki Kaisha,  B.C.J. No. 2635, 2017 BCSC 2357. They
submit that, like the expert evidence in Ewert, Dr. Reutter’s report
demands an assumption that the econometric model proposed to
determine harm to the non-umbrella purchasers can be applied to
umbrella purchasers, without providing any methodology for
doing so. In Ewert, the court also expressed concern about the
availability of the data required to implement the expert’s
 Finally, the respondents put forward expert evidence to the
effect that any method to determine a potential impact of the
alleged conspiracy on non-defendant prices would necessarily be
different than the assessment of an impact on the respondents’
prices. This is due to the additional causal question of whether
non-defendants increased their prices in reaction to the alleged
collusion. As such, the question of harm to the class requires, in
the respondents’ view, an individualized analysis and the question
cannot be determined in common.
 We acknowledge that Dr. Reutter’s methodology of proving
harm does not expressly mention umbrella purchasers and that it
is short on detail. The majority of his report focuses on the
quantification of damages for the class rather than the threshold
question of establishing harm.
 Nonetheless, we are satisfied that Dr. Reutter has presented
a theory and a methodology that offers a realistic prospect of establishing loss on a class-wide basis. In addition to Dr. Reutter’s two-pronged approach to establishing harm to the class, Dr. Reutter
proposes using regression analysis to prove that all members of the
class, including umbrella purchasers, suffered harm. Although his