Is there any reason to certify the conspiracy claim in relation to both primary and secondary markets?

There are two answers to this argument: First, I am not satisfied that the only reason to certify the conspiracy claim, in relation to both primary and secondary markets, is the recovery of punitive damages. Damages at large may be recoverable in relation to the secondary market claim and damages in excess of the statutory cap may be available in the primary market claim. Second, the point in Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co. was that a punitive damages common issue should not be certified where it is the only common issue and where there is no common issue relating to the underlying cause of action to which the punitive damages can attach. As Nordheimer J. observed, at para. 75: … I will acknowledge that the determination of punitive damages would appear to be one that would be justified on a class-wide basis. What the defendants knew about their product and what they did with that information can be determined without any involvement of the members of the proposed class. However, punitive damages alone cannot justify the certification of an action as a class proceeding. There must be some underlying cause of action to be determined on a class-wide basis to which the claim for punitive damages can attach before certification can be granted.