IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON JEFFREY ALLEN. -and-

Transcription

1 CANADA PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN Q.B. No. Q_.!/7 of2011 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: JEFFREY ALLEN Plaintiff -and- UPONOR LTD. (fka UPONOR CANADA INC. and UPONOR CANADA LTD.) and UPONOR INC. (successor to UPONOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.) Proceeding under The Class Actions Act NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS Defendants 1. The Plaintiff may enter Judgment in accordance with this Statement of Claim or such Judgment as may be granted pursuant to the Rules of Court unless: within 20 days if you were served in Saskatchewan within 30 days if you were served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America within 40 days if you were served outside of Canada or the United States of America (excluding the day of service ) you serve a Statement of Defence on the Plaintiff and file a copy thereof in the Office of the Local Registrar of the Court for the Judicial Centre above-named In many cases a Defendant may have the trial of the action held at a Judicial Centre other that the one at which the Statement of Claim is issued. Every Defendant should consult his lawyer as to his rights. This Statement of Claim is to be served within 6 months from the date on which it is issued. This Statement of Claim is issued at the above-named Judicial Centre, the1!5ctay of September, ffl!. 00~..._ y 'DEPUTY looai Ret:!t~TO~ M ~._t) Local Registrar

2 -2- CLAIM THE PARTIES Plaintiff 1. The plaintiff, Jeffrey Allen, (hereinafter "the Plaintiff") resides in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 2010, the Plaintiff purchased a pre-existing residential house, which was equipped with a Pex plumbing system utilizing brass insert fittings. That same year, the Plaintiff's Pex system ruptured, such that the Plaintiff was required to replace his Pex plumbing system. This involved the removal and replacement of substantial amounts of dry-wall. Defendants 2. The defendant, Uponor Ltd. is a Saskatchewan Corporation with its registered head office and mailing office in Regina, Saskatchewan. Uponor Ltd. previously operated under the names Uponor Canada Inc. and Uponor Canada Ltd. 3. Uponor Ltd. is a publicly-held entity that, among other things, designs, manufactures, markets, and sells a diverse line of integrated thermoplastic piping systems, which include pipes, valves, fittings, auxiliary components, and tools. Uponor' s piping systems are used in municipal, industrial, commercial, and residential applications across Canada. 4. Uponor Ltd. was, at all relevant times, engaged in the design, manufacture, marketing, and/or sale of Pex plumbing products, including brass insert fittings, which were sold in Canada for installation in homes and buildings across Canada. 5. The defendant, Uponor Inc., is a publicly-held entity that is in the business, among other things, of advertising, warranting, manufacturing, and selling plumbing components. Uponor Inc. is the successor to Uponor North America, Inc. Uponor Inc. is an Illinois corporation, with its principal place of business in Apple Valley, Minnesota. 6. In or around 1997, Uponor Inc. and/or its parent company purchased Radiant Technology, Inc. ("Radiant"). Thereafter, Radiant began selling a Pex plumbing

3 -3- system utilizing brass insert fittings. In or around early 2005, Uponor Inc. closed operations of Radiant. 7. The business of each ofuponor Ltd., Uponor Inc. and Radiant (collectively "Uponor" or the "Defendants") are inextricably interwoven with that of the other and each is the agent of the other for the design, manufacture, marketing and/or sale ofpex plumbing products and brass insert fittings in Canada. 8. Other Uponor entities and entities unrelated to Uponor (including those retained by Uponor to, inter alia, manufacture components of the Pex plumbing systems and/or brass insert fittings) may have been involved in the design, manufacture, marketing, and/or sale of Pex plumbing systems and/or brass insert fittings in Canada. Uponor is jointly and severally liable for the acts and liability of all Uponor or other entities involved in the design, manufacture, marketing and/or sale of Pex plumbing systems and/or brass insert fittings. BACKGROUND 9. Uponor designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised, marketed, and/or sold Pex plumbing systems and brass insert fittings in Canada that were not of merchantable quality or reasonably fit for their intended purpose, and that were prone to premature failure. The relevant fittings are easily identified by a "P-Pex" stamp placed on the brass insert fittings and the stainless steel clamps attaching the pipes to the fittings. 10. The Pex plumbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings are prone to premature failure and are not suitable for use as interior plumbing products for the length of time advertised, marketed, and/or warranted. In particularly, the brass insert fittings (used in Pex plumbing systems and other applications to connect lengths of pipe) are prone to dezincification and/or stress corrosion cracking. 11. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that the fitting design and choice of brass alloy made the brass insert fitting susceptible to premature failure through dezincification and/or stress corrosion cracking.

4 Insert fitting systems typically use a crimp or stainless steel clamp connection design in which brass insert fittings are inserted into the Pex tubing. The brass insert fittings are secured by using a special tool that crimps copper rings or stainless steel clamps around the outside of the tubing, which in turn, creates a seal between the Pex tubing and the brass fitting. 13. Uponor's brass fittings are "yellow brass" and are made from an alloy of copper and zinc. Dezincification is a process whereby zinc leaches from the brass and causes a white powdery build-up (zinc oxide) on the side of the fitting. The white powdery build-up causes the water flow in the Pex plumbing pipes to become restricted. This, in turn, causes the pipes to become pressurized, resulting in leaks and water damage. 14. The fact that materials with high zinc content (such as "yellow brass" used in the manufacture of the Defendants' brass insert fittings) are prone to dezinci:fication was documented almost 40 years prior to the first sale of the Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings by the Defendants. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that the brass insert fittings were prone to dezincification defects. 15. In addition, the design, choice of material and manufacturing processes of the brass insert fittings resulted in residual stress and machining imperfections (including grooves and crevices) that cause in stress corrosion cracking, resulting in leaks and water damage. This stress occurs at the manufacturing stage, before installation. 16. At the installation stage, the brass insert fittings are subject to additional stress. The crimp and stainless steel clamp system design used by Uponor for their Pex-plumbing systems paces a great deal of stress on the brass insert fittings when the system is assembled as intended, which contributes to the stress corrosion cracking. 17. In corrosive or "aggressive" water, the dezincification process is accelerated in areas of stress corrosion cracking. As a result, the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings can develop water leaks shortly after installation.

5 The Defendants knew or ought to have known that the manufacturing process used for the brass insert fittings left residual stress and machining imperfections that would cause premature failure through stress corrosion cracking. 19. Because of the defective design, material choice, and manufacturing practices, the brass insert fittings are inherently defective and fail in their ~tended purpose. 20. The Defendants warranted and advertised that their Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings had a 25-year warranty that expressly covered consequential damages arising from leaks or failures in the plumbing system. The Defendants' various representations did not disclose that the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings were defective and prone to premature failure or that they would :p.ot last the entire warranty period. 21. During the relevant period, the Defendants marketed, represented and/or warranted the Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings as proven, reliable time tested, and the result of rigorous engineering and quality control practices when they knew or ought to have known these statements were false and unsupported. 22. The Defendants and their authorized agents and sales representatives made the abovedescribed assertions, representations and warranties in respect of the Pex plumbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings with the intent and purpose of inducing plumbing suppliers, builders, plumbers, and consumers to purchased Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings for installation in homes, offices and other buildings. 23. As a result of the defects identified in the paragraphs above, it is inevitable that many homeowners and other property owners will be required to remove and replace any Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings in their homes or other building structures at a substantial cost to the property owner and substantial damage to the property. In many circumstances, homeowners and other property owners will have to remove and replace the entire Pex plumbing system. In doing so, it is often necessary to remove and replace drywall, ceilings, floors, carpeting, tile, cabinets, and the like. In essence, the replacement of an entire plumbing system requires the

6 -6- property owner to remove and replace substantial portions of the interior of their home or other building structure. 24. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew or ought to have known before and during the time they sold Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings that they were defective, not fit for use as interior plumbing products for the length of time advertised, marketed and/or warranted, and prone to premature failure. 25. The Plaintiff alleges that had the defects been known, Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings would not have been purchased or installed for use in either residential or commercial properties. 26. Uponor stopped selling Pex plumbing products in Canada and the United States in or around 2005 or THE PLAINTIFF'S PEX PLUMBING SYSTEM WITH BRASS INSERT FITTINGS 27. In 2010, the Plaintiff purchased a residential property with apex plumbing system that contained the faulty brass insert fittings. The Plaintiff's Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings developed leaks, such that the Pex plumbing system required immediate and costly replacement. The brass insert fittings and Pex plumbing system installed in the Plaintiff's home failed before the expiry ofuponor's standard 25-year warranty, as a result of the defects described herein. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION Canada Consumer Protection Legislation 28. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Competition Act, R.S., 1985, c. C-34, s , and pleads a person engages in "reviewable conduct" who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever, (i) makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect or (ii) makes a representation to the public in the form of a statement, warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based

7 -7- on an adequate and proper test thereof, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation. Saskatchewan Consumer Protection Legislation 29. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon The Consumer Protection Act, R.S.S. 1996, c. C- 30.1, ss. 1 and 5, and pleads it is an unfair practice contrary to The Consumer Protection Act for a supplier to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled, to make a false claim, representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if they are not. A supplier includes a person who carries on the business of manufacturing, importing, producing or assembling goods. 30. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon s. 45 of The Consumer Protection Act and pleads that any promise, representation, affirmation of fact through advertising by the manufacturer relating relating to the quality, performance and efficacy of a product is deemed to be an express warranty if the warranty would induce a reasonable consumer to buy the product. 31. The Plaintiff further relies on ss. 48 and 50 of The Consumer Protection Act and pleads that the manufacturer gives a statutory warranty that a consumer product is of acceptable quality and it and its components are durable for a reasonable period and that the manufacturer is liable for its own breach of the statutory warranty. Ontario Consumer Protection Legislation 32. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 14, 'the Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18, ss. 2 and 3 and pleads: (a) (b) it is an unfair practice contrary to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to make false, misleading or deceptive representations, including representations that goods are of a particular standard, quality and grade, if they are not; and it is an unfair practice contrary to the Business Practices Act to make false, misleading or deceptive representations, including representations that goods

8 -8- are of a particular standard, quality and grade, if they are not and representations that goods have performance characteristics that they do not have. Alberta Consumer Protection Legislation 33. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Fair Trading Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-2, ss. 1 and 6, and pleads it is an unfair practice contrary to the Fair Trading Act for a supplier to do or say anything that might reasonably deceive or mislead a customer, to represent that goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if they are not, or to make a representation about the performance, capability or length of life of the goods unless: (i) the representation is based on adequate and proper independent testing that was done before the representation was made, (ii) the testing substantiates the claim, and (iii) the representation accurately and fairly reflects the results of the testing. A supplier is defined to include, a person who, in the course of the person's business, manufactures, assembles or produces goods, or promotes the use or purchase of goods or services. British Columbia Consumer Protection Legislation 34. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, ss. 1, 4 and 203, and the Trade Practice Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 457, s. 3, and pleads: (a) it is a deceptive act or practice contrary to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act for a supplier to make an oral, written, visual, descriptive or other representation that has the capability, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading a consumer. A representation by a supplier that goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if they are not constitutes a deceptive act or practice. A supplier is defined to include a person, who in the course of business, participates in a consumer transaction by (i) supplying goods to a consumer, or (ii) soliciting, offering, advertising or promoting with respect to the supply of goods by a supplier to a consumer for

9 -9- purposes that are primarily personal, family or household, whether or not privity of contract exists between that person and the consumer; (b) (c) a contract or consumer transaction entered into before the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act came into force is not invalid or does not contravene the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act if the contract or consumer transaction complies with the provisions of a "former Act". A "former Act" is defined to include the Trade Practices Act; and it is a deceptive practice under the Trade Practices Act to make a representation, including a failure to disclose that has the capability or effect of deceiving or misleading a person, and to make a representation that the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if it is not. Manitoba Consumer Protection Legislation 35. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon The Business Practices Act, S.M , c. 6, ss. I or 2, and pleads it is an unfair practice contrary to The Business Practices.Act for a supplier to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled, to make a false claim, representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if they are not. A supplier is defined to include a person who is carrying on or is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing or assembling goods. Newfoundland Consumer Protection Legislation 36. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, S.N.L. 2009, c. C-31.1, s. 7, and pleads that it is an unfair business practice to make a representation or fail to disclose material facts that has the effect or might reasonably have the effect of deceiving or misleading a consumer, including representations that goods have a particular performance, characteristics, or benefits that they do not have and representations that goods are of a particular standard, quality or grade that they are not.

10 - 10- Prince Edward Island Consumer Protection Legislation 37. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Business Practices Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. B- 7, ss. 2 and 3, and pleads it is an unfair practice contrary to the Business Practices Act to make a false, misleading or deceptive consumer representation, including a representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if they are not. Quebec Consumer Protection Legislation 38. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-40.1, s. I, 41-43, 215, 219, 221, and 228 and pleads: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) a "manufacturer" is defmed to include a person in the business of assembling, producing or processing goods, and, in particular, a person who represents himself to the public as the manufacturer of goods; goods provided must conform to the statements or advertisements regarding them made by the manufacturer. The statements or advertisements are binding on that manufacturer; a written or verbal statement by the representative of a manufacturer respecting goods or services is binding on that manufacturer; a warranty respecting goods or services that is mentioned in a statement or advertisement of the manufacturer is binding on that manufacturer; and it is a prohibited practice to make false or misleading representations to a consumer; it is a prohibited practice to falsely hold out that goods are of a particular standard; it is a prohibited practice to falsely ascribe certain characteristics of performance to goods; and

11 - 11- (h) it is a prohibited practice to fail to mention an important fact m any representation made to a consumer. Breaches of the Consumer Protection Legislation 39. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants are in breach of the above-listed consumer legislation in that: (a) (b) the Pex plumbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings were not of merchantable quality, reasonably fit for the intended purpose or durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put; and the Defendants engaged in unfair practices by making false, misleading and deceptive representations, representing that the Pex plumbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings were of a particular standard, quality and grade, which they were not, failing to disclose that the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings were defective and prone to early failure, and making representations about the performance, capability or length of life of the Pex plumbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings that were not based on adequate and proper independent testing that was done before the representation was made and that were not substantiated by the testing. The representations were made with the intention that consumers, including the Plaintiff, would rely upon them and consumers, including the Plaintiff, reasonably relied on these representations when purchasing Pex plumbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings. NEGLIGENCE 40. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants owed to them and other persons in Canada who are similarly situated the following duties of care and other duties: (a) to ensure that the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings, were designed and manufactured properly and in a good and workmanlike manner;

12 - 12- (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) to properly research the proper design of the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings; to engage in adequate pre-market testing of the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings; to accurately represent the nature and quality of the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings and to not conceal information regarding the defective nature of the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings; upon discovering the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings, were defective and prone to premature failure, to promptly remove Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings from the marketplace, disclose the defects to the Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated in Canada, and take other appropriate remedial action; and to act in good faith towards the Plaintiff and other consumers in Canada. 41. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants are in breach of their duties of care and other duties in that: (a) (b) (c) the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings were negligently designed and manufactured in a manner which under normal conditions, usage and applications would cause the Pex plumbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings to fail prematurely; the Defendants failed to properly research the design of the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings; the Defendants failed to engage in adequate pre-market testing of the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings, to detect the defects before warranting, advertising and marketing the Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings as durable, suitable and long-lasting interior plumbing systems;

13 - 13- (d) (e) (f) (g) the Defendants failed to institute an effective products recall upon discovering the defects or the potential for the defects to occur; the Defendants failed to remedy and/or repair the defects upon discovering them; the Defendants acted recklessly in that they knew or ought to have known that the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings were defective and would fail prematurely when they marketed and sold Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings, to Canadian consumers, including the Plaintiff; representations made by the Defendants, their authorized agents and sales representatives regarding the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings, were false, misleading and deceptive and were not made in good faith, honestly or truthfully in that the Defendants misrepresented various facts regarding the quality, reliability and character of the Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings and failed to disclose the existence of the defects. Where information was provided to the public, the information was incomplete or misleading in that it sought to attribute any problems to factors other than the defects. The misrepresentations were contained in various advertising, press releases, packaging, and correspondence from the Defendants. The misrepresentations were further reiterated and disseminated by the Defendants' authorized agents and sales representatives acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority; and (h) the Defendants did not act in good faith towards the Plaintiff or other consumers in Canada, in that they designed, manufactured and marketed Pex plumbing products, particularly the brass insert fittings, that they knew or ought to have known were defective, and failed to disclose the defects to consumers.

14 - 14- WARRANTY 42. Uponor provides an express 25-year warranty for Pex plumbing products and brass insert fittings that was relied upon by the Plaintiff and other persons in Canada who are similarly situated in purchasing the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings. DAMAGES 43. As a result of the breaches as pleaded above, the Plaintiff and those other persons similarly situated in Canada have suffered loss and damages and plead relief, the particulars of which include: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) an order certifying the action as a class action; damages equivalent to the costs of removing and replacing the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings installed in homes, offices, and other buildings. In many circumstances, this will require the removal and replacement of the entire Pex plumbing system. This will result in substantial damage and expense to the property owner. In order to remove and replace an entire plumbing system, it is often necessary to remove and replace drywall, ceilings, floors, carpeting, tile, cabinets, and the like; damages for future costs of removing and replacing the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings; damages equivalent to any expenses incurred during the removal and replacement of the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings, including any expenses associated with alternative accommodations or office or building rental; damages equivalent to the resultant, progressive property damage, including water damage, caused by the premature failure of the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings;

15 - 15- (f) (g) (h) (i) damages equivalent to the diminution in the value of the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings; damages equivalent to the diminution in the value of the property owner's property as a result of the defective nature of the Pex plumbing systems installed in the home, building or other structure on the property; damages for overpayment for the Pex plumbing systems utilizing the brass insert fittings, which contained a latent defect; damages including the full costs of any investigation in connection with this action; and G) damages as calculated pursuant to the provisions of the following legislation as detailed above: Competition Act, R.S., 1985, c. C-34, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 9, the Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18, Fair Trading Act, R.S.A. 200, c. F-2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, the Trade Practice Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 457, The Business Practices Act, S.M , c. 6, Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, S.N.L. 2009, c. C-31.1, Business Practices Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. B-7, Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-40.1, and The Consumer Protection Act, R.S.S. 1996, c.c The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' conduct was high-handed, outrageous, reckless, wonton, entirely without care, deliberate, callous, disgraceful, wilful, in contumelious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff and the rights of others who are similarly situated in Canada, and as such renders the Defendants liable to pay aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages. 45. The Plaintiffs damages have been suffered in the Province ofnova Scotia, however, damages would have been suffered by similarly situated persons in Saskatchewan and elsewhere in Canada. In addition, the Defendant, Uponor Ltd. has its head office in Saskatchewan.

16 The Plaintiff pleads and relies on The Class Actions Act, S.S. 2001, c. C The Plaintiff pleads and relies on the Competition Act, R.S., 1985, c. C-34, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 9, the Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18, Fair Trading Act, R.S.A. 200, c. F-2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, the Trade Practice Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 457, The Business Practices Act, S.M , c. 6, Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, S.N.L. 2009, c. C-31.1, Business Practices Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. B-7, Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-40.1, and The Consumer Protection Act, R.S.S. 1996, c.c-30.1, 48. The Plaintiffs plead and rely on sections 28, 29 and 33 ofthe Queen's Bench Rules S.S. 1998, c Q-1.01, allowing for service ex juris. 49. The Plaintiff states that he is representative of persons in Canada who purchased Pex phunbing systems utilizing brass insert fittings during the relevant time period. RELIEF SOUGHT 50. The Plaintiff claims on behalf of himself and other persons in Canada who are similarly situated: (a) (b) general damages for conduct that is contrary to the Competition Act, R.S., 1985, c. C-34, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 9, the Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18, Fair Trading Act, R.S.A. 200, c. F-2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, the Trade Practice Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 457, The Business Practices Act, S.M , c. 6, Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, S.N.L. 2009, c. C-31.1, Business Practices Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. B-7, Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-40.1, and The Consumer Protection Act, R.S.S. 1996, c.c-30.1, in the amount of$150,000,000.00; general damages for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in the amount of $150,000, ;

17 - 17- (c) (d) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of$5,000,000.00; pre-judgement and post-judgement. interest pursuant to The Prejudgment Interest Act S.S , c. P-22.2 and The Executions Act R.S.S. 1978, c E-12, as amended; (e) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and (f) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court awards. 51. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. DATED at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this (g H- day of September, SCHARFSTEIN GffiBINGS WALEN FISHER LLP --"" I '1 (\ I J,VJ ((7};,..._ Per:., c2j, c,.,~,_ e C Solicitors for the Plaintiff Siskinds LLP 7 Per: ~$ Solicitors for the Plaintiff This Statement of Claim was delivered by: Scharfstein Gibbings Walen Fisher LLP Barrister and Solicitor # th Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 1M8 Whose address for service is: same as above Lawyer in charge of file: Grant J. Scharfstein, Q.C. Telephone: Facsimile: (306) (306)

18 - 18- Siskinds LLP Barristers & Solicitors 680 Waterloo Street P.O. Box 2520 London, ON N6A 3V8 Charles M. Wright (LSUC# 36599Q) AndreaL. DeKay (LSUC# 43818M) Linda Visser (LSUC# ) Tel: (519) Fax: (519) TO: AND TO: AND TO: UPONORLTD Scarth Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P4K9 UPONORLTD Argentina Rd. Plaza 1, Suite 200 Mississauga, Ontario LSN lwl. UPONOR INC., 5925 I 48th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota USA