The “dead parrot” sketch was cited as the BC judge to determine the glucosamine sulfate class action


Not every lawsuit can tick the funny bones of the judiciary.

However, a judge in Vancouver this week discovered similarities between a class action lawsuit filed by a woman against a handful of pharmaceutical companies and a legendary British comedy skit involving an angry customer complaining that he was cheated to buy A dead parrot.

BC Supreme Court Judge Ward Branch wrote before citing almost all the so-called dead parrot sketches: “Sometimes consumers will buy but not receive what they ordered.” Giant Python’s Flying Circus At the beginning of alProof of the complete ruling of the class action claim.

The woman responsible for the legal charges, Ultra Kumari Krishnan, claimed that she spent several years buying glucosamine sulfate products that are said to be free of glucosamine sulfate.

When allowing Krishnan to sue, Blanche compared her to “Mr. Nut”-a customer in a sketch from decades ago. When the owner held a “Norwegian Blue” parrot, it turned out to be nailed. In its habitat-in Mr. Praline’s words, a “former parrot” has “expired, and it’s time to see his maker!”

“Like poor Mr. Prahran, [Krishnan] Complained that the health products she sold didn’t have the content on the bottle,” Branch wrote.

“[She] Admit that she is not sure what is in the bottle, but thinks that the important thing is that it is Is not Glucosamine sulfate. “

From dead parrot to dead shellfish

The judge approved class actions against WN Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Natural Factors Nutritional Products Ltd. concerning products purchased after May 6, 2004 that claimed to contain glucosamine sulfate.

Glucosamine is part of human cartilage, but it is also present in the epidermis of shellfish. Glucosamine sulfate is produced by combining glucosamine and mineral salts.

Global sales of the compound are worth billions of dollars.

The glucosamine pill shown on the right is the core of a proposed class action lawsuit in British Columbia, which was brought by a customer who claimed that the product did not contain glucosamine sulfate, as listed. (Eric Risberg/Associated Press)

If Health Canada approves the glucosamine sulfate product, the manufacturer can say that it “helps alleviate the joint pain associated with osteoarthritis and prevent cartilage degradation.”

According to Branch’s ruling, the lawsuit was triggered by an academic article in 2012 that questioned the content of many commercial products that claimed to contain glucosamine sulfate.

Krishnan claimed that a professor at the University of British Columbia was hired to test a bottle of “Webber Naturals Glucosamine Sulfate 500 mg Capsules” and found that they did not contain “Glucosamine Sulfate or the so-called Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride.”

This distinction is crucial because the experts cited by the claimant stated that only glucosamine sulfate itself is effective in treating osteoarthritis, while other forms of glucosamine are more difficult to digest.

These companies disputed the claims. They also stated that their products meet the testing requirements of Health Canada, and the scientific tests performed by Krishnan’s experts exceeded government requirements.

When considering whether Health Canada’s approval of glucosamine sulfate in the prosecution was more important than the product actually contained glucosamine sulfate, Branch once again reached for the dead parrot sketch.

The judge wrote: “In order to quote excerpts from the opening comedy, Health Canada’s testing protocol cannot turn dead parrots into live parrots.”

“Health Canada cannot make an agreement that requires a parrot to be sold as a live parrot only if it still has feathers, thereby preventing anyone from filing a lawsuit after selling a parrot that’joined the invisible choir’.”

When approving the class action for certification, Branch did not determine the value of the claim—only whether it met the threshold for proceeding. These allegations have not been confirmed in court.

‘Dazzling, numb’

A search of the Canadian Institute of Legal Information database revealed that the judiciary’s love for Monty Python is a British comedy troupe that created Flying circus A TV show broadcast on the BBC between 1969 and 1974.

Dead parrot sketches are particularly popular.

Members of Monty Python are still shown in the undated promotion. From left: John Chris, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Graham Chapman, Michael Palin and Eric Adel. British comedy groups are often cited in Canadian court decisions. (PBS/Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd./Associated Press)

1998, Tax court judge The judge wrote that the behavior of the Canadian Ministry of Human Resources and Development employees was compared with the parrot seller’s treatment of taxpayer claims: “They just refused to accept that the parrot did not nap or meditate, but was actually dead.”

Alberta Court of Appeal Also quoted the sketch As a way to prove that the “dying” pipeline company that has been cancelled from the company registry cannot file a civil claim: “To borrow the irony of Monty Python, it is a non-entity, and denial does not change this fact,” the judges wrote.

In a literary tour, The Ontario High Court judge compared a witness Said to the so-called stupid minister of Monty Python that when he completed his testimony, his “credibility was reduced to confetti of existence” and that “his body was even shorter than when the trial began.”

The same judge described the closing submissions as “dazzling, numb” and “herniated disc.”

Not to be outdone, the BC Civil Adjudication Tribunal Was ruled in a dispute last year A man claimed to have been sold a defective parrot. In this case, the members of the arbitration tribunal found that there was an “implied guarantee” that the former parrot-Tiberius-would remain healthy for at least six months after the purchase.



Source link