In the Supreme Court of British Columbia ERIKOUN

SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER REGISTRY MAR 2 7 2015 No. Vancouver Registry Between and In the Supreme Court of British Columbia ERIKOUN TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD., TOYODA GOSEI NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, TG FLUID SYSTEMS USA CORPORATION, TG KENTUCKY, LLC, FUEL TOTAL SYSTEMS KENTUCKY CORPORATION, TG MINTO CORPORATION, WATERVILLE TG INC., TOYODA GOSEI HOLDINGS INC. and TOYODA GOSEI RUBBER MEXICO, S.A. de C.V. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 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 ip 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 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 and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim. JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUCED 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 reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you,

(b) if y.ou reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on wh1ch a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, (c) if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, 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 Overview CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF I. Beginning at least as early as February 2004 and continuing until at least September 2010, the Defendants (as described in paragraphs 9 through 18 below) conspired with various corporations, persons, partnerships, finns and/or individuals not named in this lawsuit, the identities of which are not presently known, to I) fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of certain Automotive Hoses (as defined in paragraph 22 below), 2) to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of certain Automotive Hoses, 3) to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of certain Automotive Hoses, and/or 4) to rig bids for certain Automotive Hoses (collectively the "Conspiracy", as further defined in paragraphs 30 through 32 below). 2. The Conspiracy was targeted at automobile originaj equipment manufacturers ("OEMS"), who purchased the Automotive Hoses directly from the Defendants or one of them, and component manufacturers ("Tier I Manufacturers"), who purchased the Automotive Hoses directly from the Defendants or one of them before selling the Automotive Hoses to OEMs. 3. As a consequence of the Defendants' collusive conduct, the Defendants and their coconspirators eliminated or reduced competition in the Automotive Hoses industry. Through their conduct, the Defendants effectuated an overcharge for the Automotive Hoses purchased by OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers. 4. The artificially inflated prices that OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers paid for the Automotive Hoses were passed on to indirect purchasers of the Automotive Hoses, being persons who purchased or leased new vehicles containing the Automotive Hoses.

5. Persons who acquired replacement Automotive Hoses for their vehicles from re-sellers of Automotive Hoses were also affected by the artificially inflated prices of the Automotive Hoses. 6. The Defendants' conspiracy therefore raised prices for all members of the proposed class, all of whom suffered losses as a consequence of the Defendants' unlawful conduct. The Parties 7. The Plaintiff, Erik Oun, is a resident of Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. He purchased a Toyota Yaris in or about June of 2007 in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia (the "Vehicle"). The Vehicle contains Automotive Hoses manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or sold by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was therefore an indirect purchaser- and ultimate consumer- of the Defendants' Automotive Hoses. 8. The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of persons who purchased, either directly and indirectly, the Automotive Hoses ("Class Members", to be defined in the Plaintiff's application for class certification). 9. The Defendant, Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. ("Toyoda Gosei"), is a Japanese corporation with a registered legal address at I Haruhi-Nagahata, Kiyosu, Aichi, Japan. During the relevant period, Toyoda Gosei employed at least 5000 individuals. For the year ended March 31, 2014, Toyoda Gosei's consolidated net sales totaled 689.4 billion with a consolidated net income of approximately 26.2 billion. 10. The Defendant, Toyoda Gosei North America Corporation ("Toyoda North America"), is a company incorporated in Michigan with a registered office address c/o The Corporation Company at Suite 2345, 30600 Telegraph Road in Bingham Farms, Michigan, USA. Toyoda North America is a subsidiary oftoyoda Gosei.,,\ 1 1. The Defendant, TG Fluid Systems USA Corporation ("TG Fluid"), is a company incorporated in Michigan with a registered office address c/o The Corporation Company at Suite 2345, 30600 Telegraph Road in Bingham Farms, Michigan, USA. TG Fluid is a subsidiary of Toyoda Gosei.

12. The Defendant, TG Kentucky, LLC ("TG Kentucky"), is a Kentucky Limited Liability Company with a registered office address c/o CT Corporation System at Suite 512, 306 West Main Street in Frankfort, Kentucky, USA. TG Kentucky is a subsidiary oftoyoda Gosei. 13. The Defendant, Fuel Total Systems Kentucky Corporation ("Fuel Systems"), is a Kentucky corporation with a registered office address c/o CT Corporation System at Suite 512, 306 West Main Street in Frankfort, Kentucky, USA. Fuel Systems is a subsidiary of Toyoda Gosei. 14. The Defendant, TG Minto Corporation ("TG Minto"), is a Canadian company registered extra-provincially in Ontario. TG Minto has a registered office address at 300 Toronto Street in Palmerston, Ontario. TG Minto is a subsidiary oftoyoda Gosei. 15. The Defendant, Waterville TG Inc. ("Waterville TG"), is a Canadian company registered extra-provincially in Quebec. Waterville TG has a registered office address at 10 rue du Depot in Waterville, Quebec. Waterville TG is a subsidiary oftoyoda Gosei. 16. The Defendant, Toyoda Gosei Holdings Inc. ("Toyoda Holdings"), is a Canadian company registered extra-provincially in Quebec. Toyoda Holdings has a registered office address. ai 10 rue du Depot in Waterville, Quebec. Toyoda Holdings is a subsidiary of.toyoda Gosei. 17. The Defendant, Toyoda Gosei Rubber Mexico, S.A. de C.V. ("Toyoda Mexico") is a Mexican company with a registered legal address at Privada Palma Mayor 240 Parque Industrial los Palmares, Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Toyoda Mexico manufactures motor vehicle parts and accessories. 18. The Defendant companies named in paragraphs 9 through 17 of this pleading are collectively referred to herein as the "Toyoda Defendants". Each of the Toyoda Defendants was an agent of the other for the purposes of the manufacture, distribution, marketing and/or sale of the Automotive Hoses.

\ 19. At all material times, the Toyoda Defendants functioned as a joint enterprise in the Conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the Automotive Hose industry. The business of each of the Toyoda Defendants is inextricably interwoven, and they operate collectively for their mutual benefit and profit. 20. Other corporations, persons, partnerships, firms and/or individuals not named in this pleading, because their identities are currently unknown to the Plaintiff, participated as coconspirators in the Conspiracy and performed acts and made statements and agreements in furtherance of the Conspiracy (the "Co-conspirators"). The Co-conspirators were all persons whom it is reasonable to believe would have, in the absence of the Conspiracy, been likely to have competed with the Toyoda Defendants with respect to the Automotive Hoses. 2 I. Whenever reference is made in this pleading to any act, communication, agreement or transaction of a corporation, the Plaintiff is alleging that the corporation engaged in the act, communication, agreement or transaction by or through its directors, officers, employees and/or agents while they were actively engaged in the direction, management and/or control of the corporation's business. Automotive Hoses 22. The Automotive Hoses at issue include low-pressure rubber hoses used in automobile engine compartments, and plastic and resin tubes used in automobile engine compartments and fuel tank modules. The Automotive Hoses at issue are standard features of every new vehicle and are installed by OEMs in new vehicles as part of the manufacturing process. The Automotive Hoses are also installed in vehicles to replace warn out, defective or damaged Automotive Hoses. Automotive Hoses are typically manufactured for specific automobiles, and are developed over a year in advance of an automobile model entering the market. 23. Before ordering Automotive Hoses for a new model, OEMs and, in some circumstances, Tier I Manufacturers, request pricing from part suppliers through requests for quotation ("RFQs").

24. Once a supplier is awarded a contract to supply parts for a particular automobile model, the supplier typically supplies the parts for the duration of the model. Once production of the model-specific part has begun, OEMs issue annual price reduction requests ("APRs") to the part suppliers throughout the term of the supply contract. 25. In response to RFQs for certain Automotive Hoses, the Toyoda Defendants and their Coconspirators submitted price quotes to various OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers. In response to their submitted quotes, the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators were awarded certain supply contracts. 26. Pursuant to these supply contracts, the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators manufactured certain Automotive Hoses in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Japan and elsewhere and then supplied the Automotive Hoses to various OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers for installation in vehicles 1) manufactured and sold in Canada, 2) manufactured and sold in the United States, 3) manufactured and sold elsewhere, 4) manufactured in Canada and then exported to and sold elsewhere, 5) manufactured in the United States or elsewhere and then imported to and sold in Canada, and/or 6) as replacement parts. 27. The affected OEMs included, but were not limited to: Toyota Motor Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, affilia~es, and suppliers in Canada,. the United States, Japan and elsewhere (collectively "Toyota"); General Motors Company and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere; Ford Motor Company and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere; FCA US LLC and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere; Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; Nissan Motor Company Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States, Germany and elsewhere; Daimler AG and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States, Germany and elsewhere; and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and certain of its subsidiaries, affiliates, and suppliers in Canada, the United States, Germany and elsewhere.

..._. 28. The identities of all affected OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers who entered into supply contracts with the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. 29. The sale of the Automotive Hoses - and the Conspiracy which led to their artificially inflated prices - resulted in substantial revenues for the Toyoda Defendants. During the relevant period, the Toyoda Defendants' sales of the Automotive Hoses to Toyota in the United States totaled approximately US$61 million. These sales do not include any sales of the Automotive Hoses to: 1) Toyota in Canada, Japan and elsewhere; or 2) any other OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere. Inclusive of these sales, the Toyoda Defendants' profits from the Conspiracy were substantial. The Conspiracy 30. The Toyoda Defendants voluntarily colluded as between themselves and with their Coconspirators to use unlawful means to injure the economic interests of I) Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers, and 2) indirect purchasers of the Automotive Hoses. 31. Beginning at least as early as February 2004 and continuing until at least September 2010, the exact dates being unknown to the Plaintiff, the Toyoda Defendants and their Coconspirators knowingly entered into a conti~uing agreement, understanding and concert of action to I) increase or maintain the prices of certain Automotive Hoses, and/or 2) suppress and eliminate competition with respect to the manufacture, marketing, sale and/or distribution of certain Automotive Hoses (the "Agreement"), and to conceal their Agreement from Toyota, other OEMs, Tier I Manufacturers and industry stakeholders. 32. The substantial terms of the Agreement included: I) fixing, maintaining, increasing or controlling the price for the supply of certain Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere, 2) allocating sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of certain Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere, 3) fixing, maintaining, controlling, preventing, lessening or eliminating the

production or supply of certain Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere, and/or 4) engaging in bidrigging with respect to quotes for the supply of certain Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere. 33. With respect to the Conspiracy, "price" includes any discount, rebate, allowance, price concession or other advantage in relation to the supply of the Automotive Hoses. 34. Bid-rigging, with respect to the Conspiracy, means I) an agreement or arrangement between or among the Toyoda Defendants and their Coconspirators whereby one or more of those persons agreed or undertook not to submit a bid or tender in response to a call or request for bids or tenders, or agreed or undertook to withdraw a bid or tender submitted in response to such a call or request, or 2) the submission, in response to a call or request.for bids or tenders, of bids or tenders were arrived at by the agreement or arrangement between or among the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators where the agreement or arrangement was not made known to Toyota or other OEMs and,lor Tier.... -.. -. I Manufacturers calling for or requesting the bids or tenders for Automotive Hoses at or before the time when any bid or tender was submitted or withdrawn by the Toyoda Defendants or their Co-conspirators. 35. For the purpose of carrying out the Conspiracy, the Toyoda Defendants and their Coconspirators engaged in conduct that included, among other things: a. participating in meetings, conversations and other communications to discuss the bids and price quotations to be submitted to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; b. participating in meetings, conversations and other communications to discuss the allocation among the companies of certain sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of the Automotive Hoses;

c. agreeing, during those meetings, conversations and communications on bids and price quotations (including ARPs) to be submitted to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere or, alternatively, agreeing that one or more of the companies not submit bids in response to RFQs or that one or more companies withdraw bids submitted in response to RFQs; d. agreeing, during those meetings, conversations and communications to fix, maintain, increase or control the price (including ARPs) for the supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; e. agreeing, during those meetings, conversations and communications to allocate among the companies certain sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; f. agreeing, during those meetings, conversations and communications to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; g. in order to effectuate the Agreement, exchanging information on: I) bids and price quotations (including ARPs) to be submitted to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufaciurers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere, 2) the allocation of certain sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere, and/or 3) the production and supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; h. in accordance with the Agreement, submitting bids and price quotations (including ARPs) to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere or, alternatively, declining to submit bids in response to RFQs or withdrawing bids submitted in response to RFQs; i. in accordance with the Agreement, fixing, maintaining, increasing and/or controlling the price (including ARPs) for the supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota

\- and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; j. in accordance with the Agreement, allocating among the companies certain sales, territories, customers and/or markets for the production or supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; k. in accordance with the Agreement, fixing, maintaining, controlling, preventing, lessening and/or eliminating the production and/or supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere; I. selling the Automotive Hoses to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices; and m. accepting payment for the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices which resulted in increased revenues for the Toyoda Defendants. 36. The acts in furtherance of the Conspiracy were carried out, at least in part, within Canada and were an unreasonable restraini of trade and commerce. 37. The sale of the Automotive Hoses - and the Conspiracy which led to their artificially..inflated prices - resulted in substantial revenues for the Toyoda Defendants. During the relevant period, the Toyoda Defendants' sales of the Automotive Hoses to Toyota in the United States totaled US$61 million. These sales do not include any sales of the Automotive Hoses to: I) Toyota in Canada, Japan and elsewhere; or 2) any other OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States, Japan and elsewhere. Inclusive of these sales, the Toyoda Defendants' profits from the Conspiracy were substantial. 38. The conduct of the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators was contrary to Part VI of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34.

\ 39. Each of the Toyoda Defendants aided, abetted and/or counselled the other Toyoda Defendants and Co-conspirators in the commission of the breaches of Part VI of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34. Each of the Toyoda Defendants therefore violated sections 21 and 22 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. 40. The conduct of the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators was also contrary to the competition laws of the United States, Japan and various European nations. 4 I. Further, for the purpose of giving effect to the Conspiracy and contrary to Part VI of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34, beginning at least as early as February 2004 and continuing until at least September 20 I 0, the exact dates being unknown to the Plaintiff, TG Minto, Waterville TG, Toyoda Holdings, and other Toyoda Defendants wherever incorporated who carried on business in Canada, implemented, in whole or in part in Canada, a directive, instruction, intimation of policy or other communication to the corporation or any person from a person in a country other than Canada who was in a position to direct or influence the policies of the corporation, which communication was. for the purpose of giving effect to a conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement entered into outside Canada, whether or not any director or officer of the corporation in Canada had knowledge of the conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement. 42. The conduct of Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators increased the price of the Automotive Hoses in Canada, including in the province of British Columbia, and in the United States, Mexico, Japan and elsewhere. The Plaintiff and Class Members were overcharged for the Automotive Hoses. 43. As a consequence of the increased price of the Automotive Hoses, economic losses and damages were incurred by direct purchasers of the Automotive Hoses, including Toyota, other OEMs and Tier I Manufacturers. 44. Economic losses and damages were also incurred by indirect purchasers of the Automotive Hoses who 1) purchased and/or leased new vehicles containing the Automotive Hoses, and/or 2) purchased replacement Automotive Hoses for their vehicles.

45. The Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators intended to cause damage to the Plaintiff and Class Members. Alternatively, the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators knew or ought to have known that their actions would i!\iure the Plaintiff and Class Members. 46. The conduct of the Toyoda Defendants in furtherance of the Conspiracy was unlawful and inequitable. The increased revenues that the Toyoda Defendants realized as a consequence of artificially inflating the prices of the Automotive Hoses are ill-gotten profits. 47. Pursuant to section 36 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34, the Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover from the Toyoda Defendants an amount equal to the loss or damage suffered by them, together with any additional amount that the Court may allow. 48. The Plaintiff and class members are also entitled to damages at common law or, alternatively, to restitutionary damages. 49. The Toyoda Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the actions of all of the Coconspirators and for the damages allocated to each Defendant. Guilty Plea in United States 50. In the United States, Toyoda Gosei waived indictm~nt and pled guilty to an Information filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on or about September 29, 2014 which charged Toyoda Gosei with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to allocate sales of, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of certain Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota in the United States and elsewhere, from at least as early as February 2004 until at least September 2010, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. I (the "Plea Agreement"). Discoverability 51. The Plaintiff could not reasonably have known that a. he sustained injury, loss or damage as a consequence of the Conspiracy; and b. having regard to the nature of her injury, loss or damage, a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage

until, at the earliest, on or about December 16, 2014 when the United States Department of Justice posted on its website a Plea Agreement between the United States of America and Toyoda Gosei. Jurisdiction 52. The Plaintiff relies on ss. 3, 7 and I 0 of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28 and pleads that there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter of this action and the Province of British Columbia for the following reasons: (a) the Toyoda Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or sold the Automotive Hoses to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in British Columbia and elsewhere; (b) the Plaintiff resides in British Columbia; and (c) the Plaintiff's damages were sustained in British Columbia. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT 53. The Plaintiff claims, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons: (a) an order certifying this action as a class proceeding and appointing him as representative plaintiff under the Class Proceedings Acl, RSBC 1996, c50; (b) general damages and special damages for civil conspiracy and unlawful interference with economic interests; (c) statutory damages pursuant to section 36 of the Compelilion Act, RSC 1985, c C- 34 for losses and damages suffered as a result of conduct that is contrary to Part VI of the Compelilion Act, RSC 1985, c C-34; (d) restitutionary damages for unjust enrichment and waiver of tort; (e) punitive damages; (f) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courl Order Interest Act, RSBC 1996, c 79; (g) investigative costs and the costs of this proceeding on a full-indemnity basis pursuant to section 36 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34; and (h) such further and other relief this Honourable Court deems just.

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS Generally 54. The Plaintiff pleads and relies on the Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, c 50, the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34, the Court Order Interest Act, RSBC 1996, c 79, the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28, the Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c 13, the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 and the common law generally, including civil conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic interests, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. Breaches of Part VI of the Competitio11 Act 55. The conduct of the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators was contrary to Part VI of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34. 56. Pursuant to section 36 of the Competitio11 Act, RSC 1985, c C-34, the Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover from the Toyoda Defendants an amount equal to the loss or damage suffered by them, together with any additional amount that the Court may allow. Civil Conspiracy 57. Civil conspiracy requires I) an agreement between two or more persons, 2) concerted action taken pursuant to the agreement, and 3) actual damage suffered by the plaintiff. If the defendant's action is lawful, there must be evidence that the conspirators intended to cause damage to the plaintiff. If the defendant's action is unlawful, there must at least be evidence that the conspirators knew or ought to have known that their action would injure the plaintiff. 58. In this case, each of the Toyoda Defendants entered into a continuing agreement with each of the other Toyoda Defendants to I) increase or maintain the prices of Automotive Hoses, and/or 2) suppress and eliminate competition with respect to the manufacture, marketing, sale and/or distribution of Automotive Hoses, and to conceal their Agreement fro)ll Toyota, other OEMs, Tier I Manufacturers and industry stakeholders. 59. The Toyoda Defendants also entered into a continuing agreement with their Coconspirators, who were their competitors with respect to the Automotive Hoses, to I) increase or

maintain the prices of Automotive Hoses, and/or 2) suppress and eliminate competition with respect to the manufacture, marketing, sale and/or distribution of Automotive Hoses, and to conceal their Agreement from Toyota, other OEMs, Tier I Manufacturers and industry stakeholders. 60. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators: I) fixed, maintained, increased and/or controlled the price for the supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere, 2) allocated sales, territories, customers or markets for the production and/or supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere, 3) fixed, maintained, controlled, prevented, lessened and/or eliminated the production or supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere, and/or 4) engaged in bid-rigging with respect to quotes for the supply of the Automotive Hoses sold to Toyota and other OEMs and/or Tier I Manufacturers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere. 6 I. The Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators intended to cause damage to the Plaintiff and Class Members. Alternatively, the conduct of the Toyoda Defendants and their Coconspirators was unlawful, and the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators knew or ought to have known that their actions would injure the Plaintiff and Class Members. 62. The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered loss and damage as a consequence of the Agreement and the concerted action of the Toyoda Defendants taken pursuant to the Agreement. 63. The Plaintiff and Class Members should be compensated for their losses. Unlawful Interference with Economic Interests 64. The three essential elements of the tort of unlawful interference with economic interests are I) the defendant intended to injure the plaintiffs economic interests, 2) the interference was by illegal or unlawful means, and 3) the plaintiff suffered economic loss or harm as a result.

65. With respect to the first element of the test, the defendant must intend to cause loss to the plaintiff either as an end goal or as the means of achieving another end goal such as selfenrichment. In this case, the Toyoda Defendants intended to cause loss to the Plaintiff and Class Members as a means of achieving their goal of self-enrichment. 66. The "unlawful means" required for the second branch of the test includes the Toyoda Defendants' torts, breaches of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34, breaches of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, and breaches of competition laws in the United States, Japan and various European nations. 67. The overcharge by the Toyoda Defendants for the Automotive Hoses satisfies the third element of the test, being economic loss to the Plaintiff and Class Members. 68. The Plaintiff and Class Members should be compensated for their losses. Unjust Enrichment 69. As a result of the unlawful conduct of the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators, the Toyoda Defendants benefited from the increased prices of Automotive Hoses which resulted in increased revenue for the Toyoda Defendants or some of them. 70. The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered a corresponding deprivation as a consequence of the inflated prices of the Automotive Hoses. 71. There was no juristic reason or justification for the enriclunent of the Toyoda Defendants; conversely, the conduct of the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators was unlawful. 72. Restitution should be paid to the Plaintiff and Class Members. Waiver of Tort 73. The conduct of the Toyoda Defendants in furtherance of the Conspiracy was unlawful and inequitable. The increased revenues that the Toyoda Defendants realized as a consequence of artificially inflating the prices of the Automotive Hoses are ill-gotten profits.

74. The Toyoda Defendants should be compelled to disgorge the profits of their wrongdoing. 75. Restitution should be paid to the Plaintiff and Class Members. Causation and Damages 76. As a consequence of the Conspiracy, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered economic loss and damage. These losses were the direct result of the unlawful conduct of the Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators which had the effect of eliminating competition with respect to the Automotive Hoses. This lack of competition caused the Plaintiff and Class Members to pay artificially inflated prices for the Automotive Hoses and/or new vehicles containing the Automotive Hoses and/or leased vehicles containing the Automotive Hoses. 77. Such loss and damage was forseeable by the Toyoda Defendants, who intended to injure the economic interests of the Plaintiff and Class Members. Punitive Damages 78. A punitive damage award in this case is necessary to express society's condemnation of the conduct engaged in by the Toyoda Defendants and to achieve the goals of both specific and general deterrence. 79. The Toyoda Defendants and their Co-conspirators intentionally engaged in unlawful conduct for their personal financial gain. The conduct of the Toyoda Defendants was planned and deliberate. It lasted for several years. The Toyoda Defendants profited from their misconduct. Their conduct was high-handed and represented a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. 80. Compensatory damages are insufficient in this case. The conduct of the Toyoda Defendants merits punishment and warrants a claim for punitive damages.

ENDORSEMENT ON ORIGINATING PLEADING OR l'etition FOR SERVICE OUTSIDE BRITISH COLUMBIA Th~ Plaintiff daims the right to serve this pleading on the Defendants outside British Columbia on the grounds that: (a) this action coticerns a tort committed in British Columbia pursuant to section JO(g) of the Court Jurisdiclion and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28; and (b) this action concerns,a business carried on in British Columbia, pursuant to section I O(h) of the Court.Jurisdiclion aild Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC2003, c 28. PlaintiffS address for service: Suite 400, 1385 West 8 111 Avenue Vancouver, BC V6H 3V9 Fax number address for service: (604)874-7171 Place of trial: Vancouver The address ofthe registry is: 800 Smithe Street Valicouver, BC V 6Z 2E I Date: March 27,2015 ~D~~ La:vyer for the Plaintiff Rule 7-1 (I) of the Supre111e Court Civil Rules states: (I) Unless all parties ofrecord con>ent 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.

\. Appendix Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: This action is a proposed class proceeding concerning violations of Part VI of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 as well as civil conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic interests, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. The Plaintiff and other class members suffered Joss and damage as a consequence of a conspiracy entered into by the defendants and other unknown coconspirators to reduce competition with respect to automotive hoses. Beginning at least as early as February 2004 and continuing until at least September 20 I 0, the defendants conspired with various corporations, persons, partnerships, firms and/or individuals not named in this lawsuit, the identities of which are not presently known, to I) fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of automotive hoses, 2) to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of automotive hoses, 3) to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of automotive hoses, and/or 4) to rig bids for automotive hoses. The conspiracy had the effect of increasing the price of automotive hoses sold to original equipment manufacturers for use in new vehicles. The artificially inflated price affected both direct and indirect purchasers of the automotive hoses. Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: A personal iqjury arising out of: - A dispute concerning: [ ] a motor vehicle accident [ ) medical malpractice [ ] another cause [ ] contaminated sites [ ] construction defects [ ) real property (real estate) [) personal property [ ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters

[ ] investment losses [] the lending of money [ ] an employment relationship [ J a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate [x] a matter not listed here Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: [x] a class action [ ] maritime law [ ] aboriginal law [ ] constitutional law [ ] conflict of laws [ ] none of the above [ ] do not know Part 4: Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, c 50 Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 Court Order Interest Act, RSBC 1996, c 79 Court Jurisdiction and Proceeding Transfor Act, SBC 2003, c 28 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c 13