.,;:(.~. * VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PHIL BEEDLE

Transcription

1 OF ~UPREME COURT VAN~ll~PRCROELUMB IA GIST RY S ::~,~ JUN ::::~ :. No.. '.,;:(.~. * VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: PHIL BEEDLE PLAINTIFF AND: GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ROBERT BOSCH INC.. ROBERT BOSCH LLC DEFENDANTS Brought pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act. RSBC 1996 c 50 NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to respond to this action. you or your lawyer must (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff. If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the abovenamed registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below. and

2 - 2 - (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim. JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. Time for response to civil claim A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff, (a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada. within 21 days after that service, (b) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of America, within 35 days after that service, (c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or (d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS The Parties 1. The Plaintiff, Phil Beedle, is a firefighter residing in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. 2. The Defendant. General Motors of Canada Company, is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the province of Nova Scotia. 3. The Defendant, General Motors LLC, is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the state of Delaware in the United States of America. General Motors Company of Canada and General Motors LLC are collectively referred to herein as "GM". 4. The Defendant, Robert Bosch Inc.. is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the province of Ontario.

3 The Defendant, Robert Bosch LLC, is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the state of Delaware. Robert Bosch Inc. and Robert Bosch LLC are collectively referred to herein as "Bosch". 6. At all material times, GM carried on business marketing, selling and leasing automobiles in Canada under the brand names "Chevrolet" and "GMC", including the vehicles particularized at paragraph 23 of this Claim. 7. At all material times, Bosch was involved in developing, manufacturing, and testing the electronic diesel control that allowed GM to implement Defeat Devices (as defined below). The Class 8. This action is brought on behalf of members of a class (the "Class") consisting of the Plaintiff and all British Columbia resident persons who purchased or leased a vehicle manufactured by the Defendant and equipped with a Defeat Device in Canada (the "Affected Vehicles"), as particularized at paragraph 23 of this Claim (excluding the Defendants, their employees and their respective parents, subsidiaries and affiliates). Background 9. In August 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Silverado 3500 HD truck equipped with a Duramax diesel engine. The Plaintiff paid approximately $43,000 to purchase the vehicle. 10. At all material times, GM widely promoted its diesel vehicles, including those particularized at paragraph 23 of this Claim. GM markets its Dura max diesel vehicles as having low emissions, high fuel economy, and powerful torque and towing capacity. GM promised that its Duramax diesel engines turned "heavy diesel fuel into a fine mist," delivering "low emissions" that were a "whopping" reduction compared to the prior model and at the same time produced a vehicle with "great power." GM claimed its engineers had accomplished a "remarkable reduction of diesel emissions." Those representations allowed GM to charge a premium of thousands of dollars for vehicles equipped with a diesel engine when compared to the gasoline versions of those vehicles.

4 Notwithstanding the higher purchase price than the equivalent gasoline powered vehicle, the Plaintiff selected and ultimately purchased the vehicle because of the Duramax diesel system, as represented through advertisements and representations made by GM. 12. Until a few days ago, the Plaintiff did not know and could not know that the vehicle he purchased was equipped with a Defeat Device {as defined below). This Defeat Device caused the vehicle to control its emissions so it could pass emissions tests. However, at all other times. the vehicle would emit up substantially more than the allowed level of pollutants under Canadian law. 13. The Canadian Government has passed and enforced laws designed to protect Canadian citizens from pollution and in particular, certain chemicals and agents known to cause disease in humans. Automobile manufacturers and importers must abide by these federal laws and regulations, namely the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, SC 1999, c 33 (UCEPA"), the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, SOR/ and the On-Road Vehicle and Engine Emission Regulations, SOR/ {the "CEPA Regulations"). 14. CEPA and CEPA Regulations have strict emissions standards for vehicles and require manufacturers and importers to meet applicable emissions standards to control air pollution. Every new vehicle sold or imported into Canada must meet applicable emissions standards. 15. Of particular concern is nitrogen oxide pollution. Nitrogen oxide pollution contributes to nitrogen dioxide, ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Exposure to these pollutants has been linked with serious health dangers, including asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses. Children, the elderly and people with pre-existing respiratory illness are at acute risk of health effects from these pollutants. 16. This case arises because GM deliberately marketed, 111anufactured, imported, sold and leased vehicles in Canada that failed to meet emissions standards, purposefully and intentionally breaching CEPA and CEPA Regulations.

5 Sophisticated software in certain diesel vehicles marketed, sold and leased by GM in Canada detects when a vehicle is undergoing official emissions testing and turns full emissions controls on only during the test. Otherwise, during all other times that the vehicle is running, the emissions controls are suppressed. This results in vehicles that artificially meet emissions standards in a laboratory or testing location, but at all other times during normal operation emit nitrogen oxides significantly higher than the standard allowed under Canadian laws and regulations. The software used by GM is a "Defeat Device" pursuant to CEPA Regulations, and is expressly forbidden. 18. Vehicles equipped with Defeat Devices, which reduce the effectiveness of emissions control systems during normal driving conditions, violate CEPA Regulations. They also allow the manufacturer to "cheat" emissions tests and market, sell or lease vehicles that do not meet the regulatory requirements. 19. The Defendant Bosch developed, manufactured and tested the electronic diesel control r EDC"} that allowed GM to implement Defeat Devices. The EDC enables software installed in vehicles to identify conditions when emissions controls can be detected (i.e. outside of emissions testing}. 20. Bosch worked with GM to develop and implement a specific and unique set of software algorithms to surreptitiously evade emissions regulations. In consultation with GM, Bosch customized its EDC units for installation in the Affected Vehicles, as defined below, with a unique software code to detect when it was undergoing emissions testing, as described above. 21. Bosch was aware that the EDC units would be used by GM to cheat on emissions testing and was involved in the concealment of the Def eat Devices from regulators. 22. Bosch was a knowing and active participant in the creation, development, marketing and sale of illegal Defeat Devices specifically designed to evade emissions requirements in Canada. 23. GM, using software supplied by Bosch, installed Defeat Devices in at least the following diesel models of its vehicles (the "Affected Vehicles"}:

6 I a. Model year GM Sierra 2500HD trucks b. Model year GM Sierra 3500 HD trucks; c. Model year GM Silverado 2500 HD trucks; and d. Model Year GM Silverado 3500 HD trucks. 24. GM has charged a substantial premium for the Affected Vehicles. These premiums occur across all of the vehicles in which GM used Defeat Devices for emissions testing. 25. As a result of GM's failure to disclose that under normal operating conditions the Affected Vehicles emit significantly more than the allowed levels of pollutants, owners and/or lessees would not have purchased or leased the Affected Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for the Affected Vehicles. 26. One of the reasons why GM equipped the Affected Vehicles with Defeat Devices is because it could not simultaneously meet its representations of performance and cleanliness. If the Affected Vehicles were made to comply with Canadian emissions standards, they would be less powerful or efficient, and will require a greater amount of fuel, thereby being worthless to owners and/or lessees. 27. Either way, Affected Vehicles will be necessarily worth less in the marketplace. 28. Some provinces in Canada require vehicles to meet certain emissions standards if they are to be privately sold. The Affected Vehicles are currently unable to meet these standards and their owners are unable to sell them. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT 29. The Plaintiff claims, on his own behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Class: a. an Order certifying the proceeding as a class action and appointing Phil Beedle as the representative plaintiff;

7 - 7 - b. a declaration that the Defendants participated in a conspiracy to implement Defeat Devices in the Affected Vehicles in order to evade emissions standards in violation of statutory, common law and equitable laws as alleged in this claim; c. general damages for conspiracy; d. a declaration that GM made representations to the public that were false or misleading; e. a declaration that GM knew that those representations were false, or alternatively, that GM was reckless as to whether the representations were true or false ; f. an order for restitution; g. general damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit; h. a declaration that GM has been unjustly enriched; i. special damages; j. a declaration that GM breached s. 52 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 (the "Competition Act); k. a declaration that GM's representations and omissions are deceptive acts or practices pursuant to s. 172(1 }(a) of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c 2 (the "BPCPA"); I. damages pursuant to s. 171 of the BPCPA; m. a permanent injunction pursuant to s. 172(1)(b) of the BPCPA restraining GM from engaging in deceptive acts or practices; n. a declaration that GM manufactured, imported or sold vehicles in Canada in contravention of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, SC 1999, c 33 ("CEPA"), the Passenger Automobile and Lig/Jt True!< Green/Jouse Gas Emission

8 - 8 - Regulations, SOR/ and the On-Road Vehicle and Engine Emission Regulations, SOR/ (the "CEPA Regulations"); o. general damages for conduct that is contrary to Part VI of the Competition Act and CEPA; p. costs of investigation and prosecution of this proceeding pursuant to section 36 of the Competition Act and section 40(b) of CEPA; q. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; r. exemplary or punitive damages; and s. such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just. Part 3: LEGAL BASIS Civil Conspiracy 30. The acts particularized in paragraphs were unlawful acts directed towards the Plaintiff and other members of the Class. which unlawful acts the Defendants knew in the circumstances would likely cause injury to the Plaintiff and other members of the Class and, as such, the Defendants are each liable for the tort of civil conspiracy. Further, or alternatively, the predominant purpose of the acts particularized in paragraphs was to injure the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the tort of civil conspiracy. 31. Further. the predominant purpose of the acts particularized in paragraphs was to injure the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and the Defendants are each jointly and severally liable for the tort of civil conspiracy. 32. Further, and in the alternative in the circumstances set out above, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class are entitled to claim based on equitable and restitutionary principles. Fraudulent Misrepresentation

9 GM widely promoted the Affected Vehicles by knowingly making false and misleading representations, namely that the Affected Vehicles met CEPA Regulations and had lower emissions than typical diesel engines while being more powerful and better performing vehicles than their gasoline counterparts. The Plaintiff and other members of the Class relied on those representations when they purchased or leased a more expensive diesel vehicle over its cheaper gasoline counterpart. Further, GM represented that the Affected Vehicles had lower emissions than past models. 34. GM made representations in the course of marketing, soliciting, advertising, offering or promoting the sale the Affected Vehicles to the Plaintiff and members of the Class knowing that they were false. 35. The representations made by GM in the course of marketing, soliciting, advertising, offering or promoting the sale the Affected Vehicles were fraudulent and deceitful, because: a. GM made false representations about the performance of the Affected Vehicles, namely that: i. the Affected Vehicles could be legally sold and driven in Canada; ii. the Affected Vehicles had certain performance characteristics; iii. the Affected Vehicles met environmental standards; b. GM knew that the Affected Vehicles violated CEPA and CEPA Regulations and were not suitable for use as clean diesel vehicles, as GM had represented the Affected Vehicles to the Plaintiff and the Class; c. GM made the representations intentionally to deceive the Plaintiff and other members of the Class; d. GM's representations induced the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase the Affected Vehicles. GM knew that Plaintiff and the Class would rely upon the cleanliness and performance quality assurances that came with its

10 Duramax diesel technology, and such reliance by Plaintiff and the Class was foreseeable and justified; and e. the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have suffered damage. 36. Alternatively, GM was reckless as to whether or not the representations were true or false. Unjust EnrichmenU Waiver of Tort 37. In the alternative, the Plaintiff waives the tort and pleads that he and the other Class Members are entitled to recover under restitutionary principles. 38. GM has been unjustly enriched as a result of the increased price of the Affected Vehicles. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered a deprivation in the amount of that price increase. 39. Since the increased price of the Affected Vehicles was received by GM from the Plaintiff and Class Members resulted from GM's wrongful or unlawful acts. there is and can be no juridical reason justifying GM retaining any part of such increased price. 40. The Plaintiff pleads that equity and good conscience requires GM to hold the amount of the price increase in trust for the Plaintiff and the other Class Members and to disgorge that amount to the Plaintiff and the other Class Members. 41. In the alternative, the Plaintiff waives the tort and pleads that he and the other Class Members are entitled to recover under restitutionary principles. Breach of the Competition Act 42. The representations made by GM in the course of marketing, soliciting, advertising, offering or promoting the sale the Affected Vehicles were false and misleading within section 52 of the Competition Act, because: a. they had the capability, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading the public, including the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class;

11 b. they represented that the Affected Vehicles could be legally sold and driven in Canada; c. they described the Affected Vehicles as having performance characteristics that they did not have: d. they described the Affected Vehicles as meeting a particular standard and which the Affected Vehicles did not; or e. they represented that the purchase of the Affected Vehicles would entitle the public to certain benefits which the Affected Vehicles did not provide. 43. GM knew that the Affected Vehicles violated CEPA and CEPA Regulations and were not suitable for use as clean diesel vehicles, as GM had represented the Affected Vehicles to the Plaintiff and the Class. 44. Moreover, GM knew that Plaintiff and the Class would rely upon the cleanliness and performance quality assurances that came with its Duramax diesel technology, and such reliance by Plaintiff and the Class was foreseeable and justified. 45. The Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class, a declaration that GM knowingly or recklessly made a representation to the public that was false or misleading in a material respect, contrary to the provisions of the Competition Act. 46. The Plaintiff says that he has suffered damages as a result of the breach of section 52 of the Competition Act and as a result seek damages pursuant to section 36 of the Competition Act, specifically: a. the cost of the rendering the Affected Vehicles complaint with CEPA and CEPA Regulations; b. alternatively, the reduction in value of the vehicle as a result of the breach of section 52 of the Competition Act; c. the cost of investigation.

12 Breach of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act 47. GM solicited, offered, advertised and promoted the sale of the Affected Vehicles to consumers in British Columbia, and is therefore a "supplier" within the meaning of s. 1 of the BPCPA. 48. Each purchase by the Plaintiff and by members of the Class of the Affected Vehicles is a "consumer transaction'' within the meaning of s. 1 of the BPCPA. Each solicitation, offering, advertisement and promotion by GM of the Affected Vehicles for purchase by the Plaintiff and other members of the class is a "consumer transaction" within the mea ning of s. 1 of the BPCPA. 49. The representations made by GM in the course of soliciting, advertising, offering or promoting the sale of the Affected Vehicles were deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of s. 4 of the BPCPA because: a. they had the capability, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers. including the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class: b. they represented that the Affected Vehicles could be legally sold and driven in Canada c. they described the Affected Vehicles as having performance characteristics that they did not have; d. they described the Affected Vehicles as meeting a particular standard and which the Affected Vehicles did not; or e. they represented that the purchase of the Affected Vehicles would entitle the public to certain benefits which the Affected Vehicles did not provide. 50. The Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf and on behalf of other members of the Class, a declaration that GM engaged in deceptive acts or practices, contrary to the provisions of the BPCPA.

13 The Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf and on behalf of other members of the Class, statutory compensation as compensation for the loss and damage they sustained as a result of GM's breaches of the BPCPA. Breach of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Regulations 52. By manufacturing and/or importing vehicles into Canada that contained forbidden Defeat Devices, GM violated CEPA Regulations. 53. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages as a result of GM's breach of CEPA Regulations, in that they paid a premium to purchase the Affected Vehicles which were held out to be in compliance with emissions standards, when in fact, they were not. As well, the Plaintiff and the Class will suffer a diminution in the value of their Affected Vehicles. 54. The Plaintiff and Class members rely on section 40 of CEPA. allowing any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct that contravenes any provision of CEPA or CEPA Regulations to bring an action to recover damages. The Plaintiff says he has suffered such damages and also claims an amount to compensate for the costs that the person incurs in connection with the matter and proceedings under section 40 of CEPA. Punitive Damages 55. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants' conduct was high-handed, outrageous, reckless, wanton, entirely without care, deliberate, callous, disgraceful, willful, in disregard of the Plaintiff's rights and the rights of each Class member, indifferent to the consequences and, as such, renders the Defendants liable to pay punitive damages. Plaintiff's address for service: BRANCH MACMASTER LLP Hornby Street

14 Vancouver, BC V6Z 1 S4 Telephone: (604) (File No.: X01-053) Fax number address for service: (604) address for service: none. Place of trial: Vancouver, British Columbia The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1 Dated: June \ Signature of lawyer for Plaintiff Ward K. Branch Luciana P. Brasil Chelsea 0. Hermanson Rule 7-1(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and (ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and (b) serve the list on all parties of record.

15 APPENDIX Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: This proposed class action involves allegations that GM made false representations to class members about emissions and performance of vehicles equipped with Duramax diesel engines. These false representations allowed GM to charge a premium for these vehicles and suffer loss. The false representations are in breach of the Competition Act. GM also engaged in deceptive acts or practices contrary to the provisions of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: A personal injury arising out of: [ ] a motor vehicle accident [ ] medical malpractice [ ] another cause A dispute concerning: [ ] contaminated sites [ ] construction defects [ ] real property (real estate) [ ] personal property [XJ the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters [ ] investment losses [ ] the lending of money [ ] an employment relationship [ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate [ J a matter not listed here Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: [XJ a class action [ l maritime law [ I aboriginal law [ I constitutional law [ l conflict of laws

16 [ } none of the above [ ) do not know Part 4: 1. Class Proceeclings Acl, RSBC 1996 c Business Practices ancl Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c 2 3. Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34