the umbrella purchasers; and (c) propose a separate representative
plaintiff for the umbrella purchasers. Accordingly, the Divisional
Court upheld the certification judge’s decision, refusing to certify
the claims by umbrella purchasers.
 The appellants were granted leave to appeal from the
Divisional Court decision. We note that not all of the defendants
are participating on this appeal because some of them have
settled the claims against them.1 In these reasons, we will use the
term “defendants” to refer to the defendants named in the fresh
as amended statement of claim (the “statement of claim”) and the
term “respondents” to refer to only those defendants who are
participating on this appeal.
 The issues for resolution in this court relate only to the
umbrella purchaser claims — their statutory claim and their
unlawful means conspiracy claim. The appellants argue that the
Divisional Court erred in concluding that
(a) it is plain and obvious that the umbrella purchaser claims do
not disclose a cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class
Proceedings Act because
( i) the respondents would be exposed to indeterminate
( ii) the requisite elements of the claims have not been
(b) the umbrella purchaser claims do not raise common issues with-
in the meaning of s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act; and
(c) a separate representative plaintiff for the umbrella purchasers
would be required under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings
1 It appears that only the Panasonic, Sanyo, Hitachi and Toshiba defendants
remain involved in the action. The certification order states that the
action was stayed, discontinued or dismissed against Hitachi, Ltd.; Maxell
Canada; NEC Canada, Inc.; NEC Corporation; NEC Tokin Corporation;
Samsung Electronics Canada Inc.; GS Yuasa Corporation. As well, at the
hearing of the appeal, the appellants’ counsel informed the court that the
claims against the NEC, Samsung and Sony defendants have also settled.
Materials have been filed but the settlements have not yet been approved.
We were informed at the outset of legal argument that the LG defendants
have also settled, and the fact of the settlement has been disclosed to the
court but no further materials have been filed.