CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: Sylvie Rodrigue, Grant Worden, Nicole Mantini and Anne Merminod, Torys LLP
provides that “[a]ny unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom”. These protected interests may include a broad range of public rights, such as the right to live in a “healthful environment” under Article 46.1 of the Québec Charter. Public nuisance claims in Canada thus risk exposing businesses to legal action by individuals or entities with whom they have no previous relationship. For example, in 2019 in Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique v Volkswagen Group Canada Inc ., 2018 QCCS 174, the Superior Court of Québec (as confirmed by the Québec Court of Appeal) allowed Quebec residents to pursue claims against Volkswagen Group Canada based on the public right to a clean environment, even if they had never pur - chased a Volkswagen vehicle. The vehicles sold by Volkswagen Group Canada were alleged to cause an increase in nitrogen oxide emissions, which the plain - tiff claimed was contrary to the Québec Charter right to live in a healthful environment. Similar proposed class actions were filed against the organisation oper - ating Montréal-Trudeau Airport, alleging that nearby residents suffered harm due to aircraft noise and air pollution. However, only the former class action was authorised. Public nuisance claims may also be used to try to buttress novel product liability claims where claim - ants seek indirect compensation for the social effects of various products. For example, as discussed in 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liabil - ity Claims , in 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected a public nuisance claim against Smith & Wesson for the design of a handgun that had been used in a public shooting. Similarly, in 2022 in Valeant Canada L . P ./ Valeant Canada S . E . C . v British Colum- bia , 2022 BCCA 366, the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected public nuisance claims against vari - ous manufacturers of opioid painkillers alleging that opioid addiction infringed on the public’s rights to health and safety. Although these particular attempts to reframe private causes of action as public nuisance claims were unsuccessful, plaintiffs’ counsel continue
to assert public nuisance in class actions and mass tort claims. These claims also have the potential to expand the scope of the types of industries that may face claims in product liability. For instance, claims based on broad - er social harms or public nuisance relating to alleged environmental contaminants (eg, PFAS, microplastics) may impact businesses higher up in the manufacture and/or supply chain for consumer end-products. Simi - larly, businesses offering technology-based goods and services, eg, AI tools, social media and/or apps, have also seen an increase in claims along these lines, as have food and beverage companies. “Mass Tort” Claims As discussed in 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Pro- ceedings in Product Liability Claims , class pro - ceedings have historically been the primary vehicle in Canada for advancing large numbers of product liability claims. However, recently there has been a rise in a compet - ing method for advancing these claims in Canada: the so-called “mass tort” model, where a single set of counsel will commence numerous individual and near-identical claims against the same defendants in various courts across Canada and seek to have the cases proceed in parallel with one another. Unlike in the USA, Canada has no centralised mechanism for managing large numbers of similar cases commenced in various courts. The legal and statutory bases under - pinning the claims and the rules of procedure govern - ing how they proceed vary from province to province, meaning that co-ordinating cases across provincial borders may be difficult. Even within a single province, centralised case management is not automatic nor available in every court centre. Thus, the individual claims ‒ in the absence of agreement among the par - ties ‒ will generally proceed in the ordinary course and will be subject to the usual procedural requirements of the jurisdiction in which they were commenced. However, most of these proceedings in Canada are in the preliminary stages, thus there is currently limited public information about the strategies that parties are pursuing to advance them.
65 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook