CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: Sylvie Rodrigue, Grant Worden, Nicole Mantini and Anne Merminod, Torys LLP
One of the main distinctions between the “mass tort” model and a traditional class proceeding is the lack of a certification/authorisation step, which can take years to resolve in Canadian courts. Thus, individual claims may move more quickly through pleadings and discovery stages, which may present earlier oppor - tunities for resolution (whether negotiated or adjudi - cated) ‒ although efficiencies may be offset by the administrative and procedural burdens on the parties. Moreover, individual actions may allow each plaintiff greater participation in, and control over, their par - ticular claim. Changes in British Columbia’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act British Columbia’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act was amended in 2025. As a result, cer - tain terms in consumer contracts are now prohibited and void, including: clauses that prevent consumers from posting public reviews of goods or services, clauses that prevent consumers from participating in class actions, and mandatory arbitration clauses. In addition, the amendments give consumers direct access to the Civil Resolution Tribunal for disputes. 3.2 Future Policy in Product Liability and Product Safety Provincial governments in Canada have been looking to both the legislature and the courts for means to recover health care costs incurred to remedy alleged harms caused by various types of products. While his - torically focused on specific industries like tobacco and pharmaceuticals, this trend has recently expand - ed to other industries and may have the potential to grow in the future. In 2018, the British Columbia government commenced a proposed class action against several manufactur - ers, marketers and distributors of opioid analgesics. British Columbia originally claimed recovery through several common law torts, as well as under the mis - representation provisions of the federal Competition Act. The proposed class included all federal, provin - cial and territorial governments and agencies in Can - ada that had paid healthcare costs related to opioids. After commencing the litigation, British Columbia enacted the ORA, which was modelled on similar
legislation in relation to tobacco products and which created a direct cause of action for British Columbia to recover health care costs arising from an “opioid- related wrong.” The ORA also empowered British Columbia to bring a class action on behalf of all of the governmental payors in Canada, and each of the other provincial governments subsequently passed equiva - lent legislation relating to opioid-related wrongs. While the defendants challenged the multi-governmental class proceeding as being outside of British Colum - bia’s legislative competence, the courts disagreed, with the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately holding in 2024 in Sanis Health Inc . v British Columbia , 2024 SCC 40, that the provision ‒ and resulting proceeding ‒ were constitutional. In the wake of the decision in Sanis, the British Columbia government has pursued additional proposed governmental class proceedings, including most recently a claim against certain manu - facturers of PFAS-containing products. Following the enactment of the ORA, British Columbia took steps towards implementing similar legislation in other contexts. In 2024, the government proposed Bill 12 (which ultimately was not passed) which would have enacted the Public Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. This proposed legislation would have potentially covered the costs of healthcare benefits arising from any alleged “health-related wrongs” ‒ that is, any breach of any common law, equitable or statu - tory duty that causes or contributes to disease, injury or illness. On 3 December 2025, British Columbia enacted the Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (VRA). The VRA follows the model of the ORA, establishing a new cause of action that allows the province to sue vaping manufacturers, wholesal - ers and consultants (as well as related entities, direc - tors and officers) for recovery of healthcare costs associated with injuries from the use of or exposure to vaping products. The scheme in the statute allows liability to be established in the aggregate, without needing to prove that the products caused harm on an individual basis. The scheme also entitles the province to rely on certain presumptions in relation to general causation and damages.
66 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook