18o\-ObG86. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA CALGARY PREETI GAHLOT as REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF MONAT GLOBAL CANADA ULC STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Transcription

1 COURT FILE NUMBER COURT JUDICIAL CENTRE PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT DOCUMENT 18o\-ObG86 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA CALGARY PREETI GAHLOT as REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF MONAT GLOBAL CANADA ULC STATEMENT OF CLAIM Form 10 [Rule 3.25) CU:HK OF Tf-'c cuu;: T F!~ED MAY JUDiC!!L CENTRE: OF CAL.GARY ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PARTY FILING THIS DOCUMENT Higgerty Law Attention: Patrick Higgerty, QC and Clint Docken, QC 101, 440-2nd Ave SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 5E9 Tel: Fax: James H. Brown & Associates Attention: Richard J. Mallett 2400 Sun Life Place Street Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3H1 Tel: Fax: A Class Proceeding pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, Chapter S.A ch C-16.5 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT You are being sued. You are a defendant. Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it. Statement of facts relied on: THE PARTIES 1. The Representative Plaintiff, PREETI GAHLOT is an individual resident of the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta. 2. The Representative Plaintiff brings this action on her behalf and on behalf of a class defined as follows ("the Class" or "Class members"): (a) All those persons in Alberta or elsewhere in Canada who at any time purchased or used MONAT Hair Care Products ("the Products"), including but not limited to the Hydration System (Renew Shampoo, Restore Leave-in Conditioner, Replenish Masque), Volume System (Revitalize Conditioner, Revive Shampoo, Reshape Root Lifter), Let it Grow System (Intense Repair Shampoo, Intense Repair

2 Treatment), Smoothing Deep Condition, Intense Repair Conditioner, excluding any person who purchased the Products for resale and not for personal or household use. (b) All those persons in Alberta or elsewhere in Canada who at any time used the Products and suffered resulting damage to their skin, scalp, hair, or other injuries as shall be proven at trial. (c) All persons who, by reason of his or her relationship to a member of the Class, are entitled to make claims under any of the Dependents Statutes in Alberta or elsewhere in Canada as a result of the personal injury of such member of the Class (the "Family Class"). (d) "Dependents Statutes" means the Family Law Act (Ontario), Family Compensation Act (B.C.), Fatal Accidents Act (Manitoba), Code Civil (Quebec), Consumer Protection Act (Quebec), Fatal Accidents Act (New Brunswick), Fatal Accidents Act (P.E.I), Fatal Injuries Act (Nova Scotia), Fatal Accidents Act (Newfoundland), Fatal Accidents Act (Nunavut), Fatal Accidents Act (Northwest Territories) and Fatal Accidents Act (Yukon). 3. The Defendant, MONAT Global Canada ULC is a body incorporate pursuant to the laws and regulations of the Canada Business Corporations Act and registered to conduct business extra-provincially in the Province of Alberta, with a registered head office located in Toronto, Ontario. At all material times, Monat was responsible, in part, for the marketing, promotion, distribution and sale of the Products in the Province of Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. THE PRODUCTS 4. The Products fall within a line of hair products called "MONAr, and MONAT Global Canada ULC is clearly labelled as the Canadian Corporation of that line of products. 5. The Products are marketed as being naturally based, safe, pure and sustainable using a blend of over 13 natural plant and essential oils rich in omega and fatty acids, antioxidants and nutrients that are "highly compatible" with the skin and hair. 6. The Products cause hair loss in large quantities, up to and including full hair loss, hair breakage, irritation, redness, itchiness, and other scalp and head injuries and illnesses. 7. According to Monat's Policies and Procedures on its website, Market Partners may only repeat information to consumers that is provided by Monat. Agent Market Partners and Monat have provided information to Class Members, such as that (i) Monat products help those suffering from alopecia regrow hair, (ii) Monat is vegan, and (iii) sores, bumps and scabs on the head while using Monat are a good thing because it means the treatment is working. 8. On its website, Monat claims that "our clinically proven ingredients have demonstrated the following outcomes" a. 88% increased manageability and shine. b. 76% increase in collagen directly increasing follicle size. c. 70% increase in repair effect improving hair anchoring. d. 58% Noticed a decrease in fiber breakage. e. 48% Decrease in DHT hormone that contributes to hair loss.

3 f. 46% increase in hair growth. g. 35% increase in hair follicle strength. 9. In reality. Defendant's statements are littered with falsehoods. The very first ingredient in MONAT is Capixyl. which is Butylene Glycol, a known petrochemical, which the Defendant promises is not present in any of its products. 10. Similarly, the Defendant claims that it uses "NO Sulfates." Yet, the Defendant's own ingredient lists include Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate-a known sulfate. The Defendant includes an ingredient it promises not to use. 11. Class members purchased MONAT Products with no reason to suspect or know the dangers occasioned by use of the Monat Products based on the statements made by the Defendant in its promotion of Monat Products, Not until hair loss began could a Class member have any reason to suspect that MONAT Hair Care Products are defective. And even after hair loss begins, consumers might not imm~diately make a connection to Monat Products. 12. Despite notice and knowledge of the problems caused by MONAT Hair Care Products from the numerous consumer complaints it has received and information from third parties, MONAT has not recalled any MONAT Hair Care Products, or offered their customers proper compensation for their damages. 13. The intentional misleading and false advertisement of the Defendant including but not limited to those listed above, resulted in significant physical and financial harm to the Plaintiff and other Class members, hereby referred to as "Wrongful Conduct". REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF 14. The Plaintiff resides in the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta. 15. The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products from or through the Defendant and used the Products as instructed during the class period. As a result of the use of the Products and the breach of duties, breach of contract, negligent acts and omissions of the Defendant as described herein, jointly and severally, the Plaintiff experienced abnormal hair loss, damage to her hair, dry and brittle hair, scalp irritation, abnormal bumps on scalp and background headaches. NEGLIGENCE 16. The Defendant owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in and Canada, the following duties of care and other duties, amongst others: (a) To ensure that the Products were safe for use and that use of such Products would not cause illness, injury, or disfigurement; (b) To conduct adequate and regular testing of the Products to ensure that they were safe for use and that use of such Product would not cause illness, injury, or disfigurement; (c) Upon discovering that the Products were unsafe, to warn the Class of the hazard, take immediate and comprehensive steps to remove any and all defective Products from the marketplace. or take any other appropriate remedial action. 17. The Defendant breached their duties and were negligent, particulars of which include:

4 (a) Failing to test the Products thoroughly prior to marketing and distribution to ensure each were. safe for use; (b) Failing to implement, ensure and follow quality control, best practice and quality assurance processes in the creation, manufacturing, processing, storage and distribution of the Products; (c) Failing to adopt technological advances in laboratory testing of the Products and advances in equipment; (d) Failing to devote sufficient financial resources to staffing personnel with expertise in hair and skin safety; (e) Failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the Products were safe for use and would not cause illness or injury; (f) Failing to conduct adequate and regular testing on the Products to ensure that they were safe for use and would not cause illness or injury; (g) Having received years of public complaints with respect to excessive hair loss, irritated scalps and other injuries and serious effects, then continuing to sell and market the Products; and, (h) Such further and other particulars as may be proven at the trial of this action. 18. By continuing to sell the Products after knowing of defects, the Defendant was grossly negligent, and owe the Plaintiff and Class aggravated or punitive damages as plead below. 19. Had the Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Products' deficiencies, they would not have purchased or used the Products, and would not have sustained the various injuries and damages caused by the Products. BREACH OF CONTRACT 20. The Plaintiff and other Class members entered into a contract with the Defendant, written, verbal and/or implied, whereby the Defendant agreed and represented to provide and sell a safe and effective product in exchange for monetary compensation. 21. It was an express, or alternatively implied term of the contracts, that the Defendant would operate in a fair, honest and equitable manner, in compliance with all applicable laws. 22. The Wrongful Conduct of the Defendant constitutes a failure to adhere to and breaching of the terms of said contacts. 23. The Plaintiff and other Class members suffered physical injuries and economic losses as a result of the Defendant's breach of contact. BREACH OF CONSUMER LEGISLATION 24. Each of the Plaintiff and the other Class members is a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 1 (1) of the Fair Trading Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-2 (the "FTA") or similar Consumer Protection Legislation as referred to herein. 25. In this Statement of Claim, "Consumer Protection Legislation" refers to the following legislation: (a) Fair Trading Act, RSA 2000, c F-2, as amended; (b) Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c 2, as amended;

5 (c) Consumer Protection Act, SS 1996, c C-30.1, as amended; (d) The Business Practices Act, CCSM, c B120, as amended; (e) Consumer Protection Act, SO 2002, c30, SchA, as amended; (f) Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-40.1, as amended; (g) Consumer Product Warranty and Liability Act, S.N.B. 1978, c. C-18.1, as amended; (h) Consumer Protection Act, RSNS 1989, c 92, as amended; (i) ij) Trade Practices Act, RSNL 1990, c T-7, as amended; Business Practices Act, RSPEI 1988, c B-7, as amended; (k) Consumer Protection Act, RSV 2002, c 20, as amended; (I) Consumer Protection Act, RSNWT 1988, c C-17, as amended; and (m) Consumer Protection Act, RSNWT(Nu) 1988, c C-17, as amended. 26. Each of the purchases by the Plaintiff or the other Class members of the Product is a.. consumer transaction" within the meaning of Section 1 (1) of the FTA or similar Consumer Protection Legislation. 27. The Defendant breached the Fair Trading Act or similar Consumer Protection Legislation by engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of and contrary to the Fair Trading Act or similar Consumer Protection Legislation. 28. With respect to the Defendants unfair practices: (a) the unfair practices involved suppliers or consumers who were residents of Alberta and Canada; or (b) the unfair practices involved consumer transactions m which the offer or acceptance was made in or was sent from Alberta or Canada; or (c) the unfair practices were made or received in Alberta or Canada involving a supplier's representative. 29. The Defendant was a "supplier'' within the meaning of s. 1 ( 1} of the PTA or similar Consumer Protection Legislation with respect to the consumer transactions for the purchase by the Plaintiff or the other Class members of the Products. 30. By placing its brands, names, logos and trademarks on the Products and by placing those Products in the stream of commerce, the Defendant represented that the Products were of high quality, safe for use, and manufactured and packaged with adherence to the strictest of health and safety standards (collectively, the "Representations"). 31. In making the Representations, the Defendant breached Section 6(4} of the FTA or similar Consumer Protection Legislation which deems it an "unfair practice" for a supplier to do or say anything that might reasonably deceive or mislead a consumer. The Defendants Representations misled consumers regarding the Products as those Products were not of high quality or safe for use as detailed herein. 32. The Plaintiffs and Class members who purchased and/or used the Products claim the full purchase price of those goods and damages.

6 (a) British Columbia Consumer Protection Legislation 33. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. S.B.C. 2004, c. 2, ss. 1, 4, 171, 173 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, 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 purposes that are primarily personal, family or household, whether or not privity of contract exists between that person and the consumer; (b) It is a deceptive practice under the Trade Practice 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. A supplier is defined to include a person, who in the course of business, solicits, offers, advertises or promotes the disposition or supply of the subject of the consumer transaction, whether or not privity of contract exists between that person and the consumer. (b) Saskatchewan Consumer Protection Legislation 34. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon The Consumer Protection Act, KS.S. 1996, c. C-30.1, ss. 3, 5, 6; 8, , 55, 56, 57, 60, 65 and 70, and states that: (a) 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. grade, style or model if they are not. A supplier includes a person who carries on the business of manufacturing, importing. producing or assembling good; and, (b) Unfair practices described in The Consumer Protection Act are unfair practices for the purposes of the Act, notwithstanding that there is no privity of contract between the supplier and any specific consumer affected by the unfair business practice. (c) Manitoba Consumer Protection Legislation 35. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon The Business Practices Act, S.M , c. 6, ss. 1, 2, 4 and 23. and states that: (a) 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. 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; and, (b) Unfair business practices described in The Business Practices Act are unfair business practices for the purposes of the Act, notwithstanding that there is no privity of contract between the supplier and any specific consumer affected by the unfair business practice.

7 (d) Ontario Consumer Protection Legislation 36. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Protection Act, SO 2002, SchA, as amended and states that: (a) It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation that good are of a particular standard, quality or grade; (b) It is an unconscionable representation to make a statement that is misleading and the consumer is likely to rely on his or her detriment. (e) Quebec Consumer Protection Legislation 37. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. c. P-40.1, s. 1, 37, 38, 41-43, and 272, and states that: (a) A "manufacturer" is defined to include a person in the business of assembling producing or processing good, and, in particular, a person who represents himself to the public as the manufacturer of good; (b) Goods provided must conform to the statements or advertisements regarding them made by the manufacturer. The statements or advertisements are binding on that manufacturer; (c) A written or verbal statement by the representative of a manufacturer respecting goods or services is binding on that manufacturer; (d) A warranty respecting good or services that is mentioned in a statement or advertisement of the manufacturer is binding on that manufacturer; ( e) Goods must be fit for the purposes for which they are normally used and must be durable in normal use for a reasonable period of time; (f) A consumer who has entered into a contract with a merchant is entitled to exercise directly against the merchant or the manufacturer a recourse based on a latent defect in the goods forming the object of the contract; and (g) A consumer having entered into a contract with a merchant may take action directly against the merchant or the manufacturer to assert a claim. (f) New Brunswick Consumer Protection Legislation 38. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Product Warranty and Liability Act, S.N.B. 1978, c. C-18. 1, s. 1, 4(2}, 10, 15, 23 and 27. and states that: (a) Statements made in writing on the product or its container or in a label, tag, sign or document attached to the product are express warranties; (b) It is an implied warranty that products are fit for the purpose for which products of that kind are normally used and that the product complies with all mandatory federal and provincial standards in relation to health, safety and quality; and (c) The warranties provided in the Consumer Product Warranty and Liability Act apply in the

8 absence of a contract between a consumer and a manufacturer. (g) Nova Scotia Consumer Protection Legislation 39. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Protection Act, RSNS 1989, c 92, as amended and states that: (a) Goods should be reasonably fit the purposes and be of merchantable quality and shall be free from latent defects; (b) (h) It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false. misleading or deceptive representation that goods are of a particular Newfoundland and Labrador Consumer Protection Legislation (h) Newfoundland and Labrador Consumer Protection Legislation 40. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Trade Practices Act, RSNL 1990; c T-7, as amended and states that: (a) (i) It is an unfair trade practice to represent that goods have characteristics, ingredients or benefits that they do not have or that goods are of a particular standard, quality or grade if they are not; Prince Edward Island Consumer Protection Legislation (i) Prince Edward Island Consumer Protection Legislation 41. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Business Practices Act, RSPEI 1988 c B-7. as amended and states that: (a) {b) A false, misleading or deceptive consumer representation is an unfair practice; An unfair practice includes a representation that goods have characteristics, ingredients or are of a particular standard, quality or grade if they are not. 0) Yukon Territory Consumer Protection Legislation 42. The Plaintiff pleads and relies _upon the Consumer Protection Act, RSY 2002, c 20, as amended and states that: (a) Goods must be of merchantable quality and be reasonably fit for the purpose intended; (b) Goods are to be free from latent defects; (c) Representation cannot be made that particular goods are of a particular quality if they are not. (k) Northwest Territories Consumer Protection Legislation (k) Northwest Territories Consumer Protection Legislation 43. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consumer Protection Act. RSNWT 1988, c C-17. as amended and states that: (a) Goods must be of merchantable quality and be reasonably fit for the purpose intended;

9 (b) Goods are to be free from latent defects; (c) Representation cannot be made that particular goods are of a particular quality if they are not. (I) Nunavut Territory Consumer Protection Legislation 44. The Plaintiff and Class plead and rely upon the Consumer Protection Act, RSNWT(Nu) 1988, c C-17, as amended and states that: (a) Goods must be of merchantable quality and be reasonably fit for the purpose intended; (b) Goods are to be free from latent defects; (c) Representation cannot be made that particular goods are of a particular quality if they are not. 45. The Plaintiff and Class plead that the Defendant breached the above Consumer Protection Legislation in that: (a) The Products 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 (b) The Defendant engaged in unfair practices by: i. making false, misleading and deceptive representations; ii. Representing that the Products were of a particular standard, quality or grade, which it was not; iii. Failing to disclose that the Products were defective; and iv. Making representations about the quality or safety of the Products that were not based on adequate and proper independent testing that were done before the representation was made and that were not substantiated by the testing. 46. The said 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 and using the Products. 47. The Representative Plaintiff, Preeti Gahlot, on her behalf and on behalf of all Class Member, seeks: (a) a declaration that the representations and unfair practices were made in violation of the various parallel provisions of the Consumer Protection Legislation; (b) damages pursuant to the various parallel provisions of the Consumer Protection Legislation. SALE OF GOODS ACT CLAIMS 48. In this Statement of Claim, "Sale of Goods Legislation" refers to: (a) Sale of Goods Act, RSA 2000 c. s-2, s. 16; (b) Sale of Goods Act, RSBC 1996c.140,s.18; ( c) Civil Code of Quebec, LRQ, c C-1991, s 1726;

10 (d) Sale of Goods Act, CCSM c. SIO, s. 16; (e) Sale of Goods Act, RSO 1990 c. s.1, s. 15; (f) Sale of Goods Act, RSNB 1973, c S-1, s. 15; (g) Sale of Goods Act, RSNL 1990, c S-6, s. 16; (h) Sale of Goods Act, RSNS 1989 c. 408, s. 17; (i) Sale of Goods Act, RSNwr 1988, c. S-2, s. 18; 0) Consolidation of Sale of Goods Act, RSNWT 1988, c. S-2, s. 18; (k) Sale of Goods Act, RSPEI 1988, c S-1, s. 16; (I) Sale of Goods Act, RSS 1978, c S-1. s. 16; and (m) Sale of Goods Act, RSV 2002, c 198, s. 15. (a) Alberta 49. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSA 2000 c. s-2, s. 16, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (b) British Columbia 50. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSBC 1996 c. 140, s. 18, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (c) Quebec 51. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Civil Code of Quebec, LRQ, c C-1991, s 1726, and pleads there is an implied warranty that property is, at the time of sale, free of latent defects which render it unfit for the intended purpose or which so diminish its usefulness that the buyer would not have bought.it or paid so high a price had he/she been aware of them. (d) Manitoba 52. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, CCSM c. SIO, s. 16, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (e) Ontario 53. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSO 1990 c. s.1, s. 15, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (f) New Brunswick 54. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSNB 1973, c S-1, s. 15, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (g) Newfoundland 55. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSNL 1990, c S 6, s. 16, and pleads that there is an

11 implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (h) Nova Scotia 56. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSNS 1989 c. 408, s. 17. and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (i) Northwest Territories 57. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSNWT 1988, c. S-2. s. 18, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (j) Nunavut 58. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Consolidation of Sale of Goods Act. RSNWT 1988, c. S-2, s. 18, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (k) Prince Edward Island 59. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSPEI 1988, c S-1, s. 16. and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (I) Saskatchewan 60. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act, RSS 1978, c S-1. s. 16, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable (m) Yukon 61. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the Sale of Goods Act. RSY c 198, s. 15, and pleads that there is an implied warranty or condition that the Products are reasonably fit for the intended purpose and of merchantable 62. The Plaintiff and class members who bought the Products in Alberta are "buyers" within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Legislation. 63. The Defendant. having agreed to sell the Products to the Plaintiff and class members, are "sellers" within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Legislation. 64. The Products are chattels personal and are "goods" within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Legislation. 65. The Products were supplied by the Defendant to Plaintiff and class members, under contracts of sale. Privily of contract existed between the Defendant, or one of them, and the Plaintiff and Class, and between the Defendant, or one of them, and each class member. 66. In each contract of sale, there was: (a) an implied condition that the Products were reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose, where the Plaintiff and class members expressly or by implication made known to the Defendant the particular purpose for which the Products were required; (b) an implied condition that the Products were of merchantable quality; and

12 (c) an implied warranty or condition as to the quality and fitness of the Products for their ordinary purpose. 67. The Defendant breached these implied warranties and conditions. The Plaintiff and class members reasonably expected that the Products were safe, of merchantable quality, and reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose. The Products were not safe, of merchantable quality, or reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose. The Plaintiff repeats the material facts in regard to the negligence claim with respect to this statutory claim. 68. As a result of the Defendants breaches of the implied warranties and conditions, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered damages and those who purchased the Products are entitled to statutory remedies pursuant to the Sale of Goods Legislation. DAMAGES 69. As a result of the negligence, including failure to war, breach of duty, breach of contract, statutory breaches and acts and omissions of the Defendant as referred to herein, jointly and severally, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages and losses including: (a) Physical injury as a result of using the Products. (b) Excessive hair loss and breakage up to and including full hair loss, scalp irritation, redness, and other physical injuries. (c) Psychological injuries as a consequence of their physical injuries. (d) Changes in their outward appearance. ( e) Pain and suffering and loss of the enjoyment of the amenities of life. (f) Pecuniary damages. (g) Hospital, medical, nursing, medication and other out-of-pocket expenses. (h) Past and future care costs. (i) Loss of income both past and future. 0) Damages on account of out-of-pocket expenses, medical expenses, skin care expenses, and hair replacement expenses. (k) Damages for misrepresentation with respect to the qualities or attributes of the Products. (I) Damages for the cost of the unused or thrown away Products (m) Loss of or difference in value between the Products as advertised and the Products actually provided. (n) As a result of injuries and effects, some of the Class Members received healthcare services, health services, insured services, treatment or other services and became beneficiaries of such services pursuant to the healthcare legislation of the Province or Territory in which each Class Member resided or received treatment. A claim is hereby advanced for the cost of such services under the applicable Provincial and Territorial Legislation including the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2008, Health Services Insurance Act, C.C.S.M.c. H-35, Health Services Act, R.S.N.B c. H-3, Health Services and Insurance Act, R.S N.S. 1989, c. 197, Health Insurance Act, R.S.O c.h-6, Health Insurance Act, R.S.Q. c.a-29, and The Department of Health Act R.S.S.c.P-17, Health Care Insurance Plan Act, R.S.Y c-107, Hospital Insurance and Health and Social Services Administration Act,

13 R.S. N.W.T., 1988 c.t-3, Hospital Insurance and Health and Social Services Administration Act,R.S.N.W.T (Nu) 1988 c.t-3, and the regulations thereunder and amendments thereto. (o) Such further and other particulars as may be proven at the trial of this action. 70. Where a person suffered illness or injury as a result of using the Products: (a) The Defendant's negligent conduct gives rise to common law damages for the person's spouse for loss of consortium; (b) The Defendant's negligent conduct gives rise to common law damages for the person's dependants for loss of care, guidance and companionship; and (c) The Defendant's negligent conduct gives rise to damages pursuant to the Tort feasors Act, RSA 2000, c. T-5 or similar legislation. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 71. The Defendant' failure to recall the Products or warn consumers of the danger was reckless, arrogant, callous, and showed a marked disregard for public safety such that an award of punitive damages is required. 72. A punitive damage award in this case is necessary to express society's condemnation of the conduct engaged in by the Defendant and to achieve the goals of both specific and general deterrence. 73. The Defendant intentionally engaged in unlawful and unethical conduct for their personal financial gain. The conduct of the Defendant was planned and deliberate. It has continued for several years, despite numerous public complaints warning them of the dangers The Defendant has profited from their misconduct. Their conduct was high-handed and represented a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. 75. Compensatory damages are insufficient in this case. The conduct of the Defendants merits punishment and warrants a claim for punitive and aggravated damages. 76. The trial of this action will not likely take more than twenty-five days to complete. 77. The Plaintiff and the other class members propose that this action be tried at the Law Courts Building in the City of Calgary in the Province of Alberta. REMEDY SOUGHT 78. An Order for certification pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act c SA 2003 and appointment of the Plaintiff as the Representative Plaintiff; 79. Damages in the amount of $15,000, including: (a) For persons who purchased the Products but did not use them, discarded the Products or did not receive a refund, damages equivalent to the purchase price; (b) For persons who used the Products, damages equivalent to the purchase price or the purchase price and the actual value of the Products;

14 (c) For persons who used the Products and experienced resulting injury or damages including out-of-pocket expenses, damages for lost wages, damages for past and future care expenses, and damages for pain and suffering. 80. Special damages in the amount $3,000, Punitive damages in the amount of $3,000, Damages for breach of contract in the amount of$10,000, An Order for the aggregate assessment of money relief and distribution thereof to the Plaintiff and Class Members. 84. Interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J 1 as may be allowed; 85. Past and future care costs pursuant to Health Care Costs Recovery Act. S.B.C. 2008, Health Services Insurance Act. C.C.S.M.c. H-35, Health Services Act, R.S.N.B c. H-3, Health Services and Insurance Act, R.S N.S. 1989, c. 197, Health Insurance Act, R.S.O c.h-6, Health Insurance Act, R.S.Q. c.a-29, and The Department of Health Act R.S.S.c.P-17, Health Care Insurance Plan Act, R.S.Y c-107, Hospital Insurance and Health and Social Services Administration Act, R.S. N.W.T 1988 c.t-3, Hospital Insurance and Health and Social Services Administration Act,R.S.N.W.T (Nu) 1988 c.t-3 and the regulations thereunder and amendments thereto; 86. Costs of this action on a solicitor/client basis; and 87. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may allow or counsel may advise. NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT($) You only have a short time to do something to defend yourself against this claim: 20 days if you are served in Alberta 1 month if you are served outside Alberta but in Canada 2 months if you are served outside Canada. You can respond by filing a statement of defence or a demand for notice in the office of the clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench at Calgary, Alberta, AND serving your statement of defence or a demand for notice on the plaintiffs{s') address for service. WARNING If you do not file and serve a statement of defence or a demand for notice within your time period, you risk losing the law suit automatically. If you do not file, or do not serve, or are late in doing either of these things, a court may give a judgment to the plaintiff(s) against you.