(f) Can damages of the non-umbrella purchaser subclass be
measured on an aggregate basis and, if so, what are the
aggregate damages for the subclass?
(g) Should the full costs of the investigation in connection with
this matter, including the cost of the proceeding or part
thereof, be fixed or assessed on a global basis pursuant to
s. 36 of the Competition Act and, if so, in what amount?
(4) Section 5(1)(e): Is there an appropriate representative
 The Divisional Court expressed the concern that there
was some potential for conflict to arise between “direct” and
umbrella purchasers, and that a separate representative plaintiff
would be necessary. At para. 51, the court noted:
The other point is that no common issues were proposed respecting the
claims of the Umbrella Purchasers, as required by s. 5(1)(c), nor was there
a proposed representative plaintiff for the Umbrella Purchasers. This latter
point is of some consequence, since the appellants conceded that the Umbrella
Purchasers would have to be a subclass, within the certified class. Given that
there would appear to be at least the potential for some conflict to arise between
the direct purchasers and the Umbrella Purchasers, a separate representative
plaintiff for the Umbrella Purchasers would seem to be necessary.
 We assume that the court’s reference to “direct” purchasers
was in reference to the non-umbrella purchasers. The court did
not articulate the nature of any potential conflict between the
umbrella and non-umbrella purchasers.
 In our view, the umbrella and non-umbrella purchasers
have the same interest at the outset, that is, to demonstrate the
existence of the conspiracy and the general increase in prices.
Although we would create a subclass for non-umbrella
purchasers, given that they have advanced the quantification of
damages as a common issue, this does not put them in conflict
with the umbrella purchasers.
 In our assessment, the proposed representative plaintiffs,
one direct and one indirect purchaser, remain appropriate at this
juncture. There is some basis in fact to find that they can satisfy
the requirements of s. 5(1)(e), namely, that they would fairly and
adequately represent the class, have produced a workable litigation
plan, and are not in conflict with the other class members on the
common issues. Although the litigation plan is not included in the
materials before the court, the respondents do not appear to take
issue with it. As we have explained, we do not, at this point,
consider that there is a conflict between the two classes such that
a separate representative plaintiff is required. If problems arise at