Canada: Year In Review: Some Positive Developments For Pharmaceutical Class Actions In Canada

Last Updated: April 11 2017
Article by Robin Linley and Jessica Lam

The end of 2016 brought with it some good news for the defence in respect of pharmaceutical class actions, including a successful defence verdict in the first pharmaceutical product liability common issues trial in Canada. In 2016, Canadian courts also signalled a willingness to embrace summary judgment as a potential tool for early resolution of class proceedings and confirmed once again that an innovator (brand name) manufacturer does not owe a duty of care to generic users of the medicine. Defendants also achieved significant successes in resisting certification of proposed pharmaceutical class actions, despite the frequent certification of such actions in Canada. The key decisions from 2016 in respect of pharmaceutical class actions are briefly summarized below.


Two decisions in 2016 show the Ontario courts embracing the cultural shift called for by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, and the move away from the conventional trial, in the interests of fairness and proportionality.

In Wise v. Abbott Laboratories Limited (Wise),the representative plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) alleging that AndroGel", a testosterone replacement therapy for the treatment of hypogonadism (testosterone deficiency) in men, caused serious cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes, and that AndroGel was sold by Abbott as a remedy for "LowT", despite having no therapeutic benefits. Abbott denied all claims of negligence and brought a motion for summary judgment in advance of certification to dismiss the action on a number of grounds including that the plaintiff could not prove general causation, a constituent element in all product liability claims. Ultimately, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the defendant's motion, concluding, among other reasons, that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because there was insufficient evidence of general causation.

2016 also saw plaintiffs embracing summary judgment on the general causation issue. In Levac v. James (Levac), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice not only certified the action, but also granted the plaintiff partial judgment against the defendant doctor. While not a pharmaceutical case, the motion has potential application in that context. The action arose from an infectious disease outbreak at a clinic where the defendant doctor administered epidural injections. The representative plaintiff alleged that the doctor, who was personally colonized with the bacteria, was responsible for the outbreak and was negligent because he implemented substandard infection prevention and control practices.

On the summary judgment motion, the court found that the doctor owed a duty of care to class members, that he breached this duty and that general causation had been established for all class members. On the evidence, there was no dispute that the doctor's breach of the duty of care could be a source of harm to patients, making the case appropriate for summary judgment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice not only found that general causation had been established for all class members, but that specific causation had also been established for those class members who were infected with the same bacteria as the doctor — a finding that was made in the absence of individual issues trials.

Both Wise and Levac suggest that we can expect to see greater use of summary judgment motions in the pharmaceutical class action context.


In the 2016 decision in Brown v. Janssen (Brown), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed Goodridge v. Pfizer Inc. (Goodridge) — that an innovator brand name drug manufacturer owes no duty of care to consumers of generic versions of the drug manufactured and sold by a generic competitor. The decision is one of the few cases in Canada to date to consider innovator liability.

In Brown, the plaintiffs' proposed class action alleged that the antipsychotic medicine Risperdal® caused gynecomastia, a condition of male breast growth, and that the defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of both Risperdal and generic risperidone about the risk of developing gynecomastia. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants knew or ought to have known that manufacturers of generic risperidone "would be bound by Health Canada's regulations to reproduce exactly in the product monographs for generic risperidone the safety data in the product monographs for Risperdal, such that prescribers and consumers of generic risperidone would necessarily be relying on safety data presented by the defendants in the product monographs for Risperdal."

The innovator defendants in Brown argued that Goodridge and other cases had already refused to impose a duty of care on a manufacturer for products manufactured by others, and that even if the court wished to reconsider the question of innovator liability, no such duty of care should be recognized. Among other arguments, the defendants argued that allowing such liability would make brand name manufacturers de facto insurers for the whole industry, and that this involved policy choices more appropriately within the legislative domain. The court in Brown ultimately granted the defendants' request to strike all allegations of innovator liability in the plaintiffs' amended claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims relating to generic risperidone had no reasonable chance of success.

A similar victory in favour of innovators was also obtained this past year at a trial in Quebec. In Brousseau c. Laboratoires Abbott ltée (Brousseau), the first pharmaceutical product liability common issues trial in Canada (discussed below), the Superior Court of Québec affirmed that individuals who consumed generic versions of a drug have no claim against the manufacturer of the innovator drug under Quebec civil law.


2016 also saw important defence verdicts in respect of proposed class certification. While pharmaceutical class actions are frequently certified in Canada, three proposed class actions were denied certification in 2016. In Batten v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. (Batten), the plaintiffs sought certification of a class action related to the anticoagulant drug, Pradaxa®. The plaintiffs alleged that Pradaxa® carried the risk of excessive bleeding and that Boehringer breached its duty to warn that there was no antidote for the drug. At the certification motion, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected this claim, finding on the evidence that there was no basis in fact to conclude that the absence of an antidote was a danger in the ordinary use of the medicine, and even if the absence of an antidote was a danger in ordinary use, there was no basis in fact to conclude that the absence of an antidote was a danger common to all class members. The proposed common causation issue also failed the commonality test because of the absence of a methodology to prove general causation. Accordingly, the court denied certification.

In Harrison v. Afexa Life Sciences Inc. (Harrison), the British Columbia Supreme Court denied class certification in a case involving the over the counter product Cold- Fx. The plaintiff alleged that the labelling, packaging and marketing of Cold-Fx misled the proposed class of purchasers of the product into believing that the product provided "immediate relief" of cold and flu symptoms. On the evidence, however, the court found that the class definition was overly broad because not all of the Cold- Fx products sold during the relevant time contained the alleged misrepresentations.

Furthermore, not all purchasers of Cold-Fx would have purchased the product for short term relief or because of the alleged representations and not all were purchasers dissatisfied with the product. Moreover, the court found that the representative plaintiff could not fairly and adequately represent the class because she appeared to be no more than a placeholder and the litigation plan for advancing the action was "boilerplate". The plaintiff has appealed the decision.

In Baratto c. Merck Canada inc. (Baratto), the plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action for all persons residing in Quebec who were prescribed Propecia® and/or Proscar® prior to November 18, 2011 for the treatment of baldness. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to adequately advise class members of the health risks associated with the use of the medications, including depression and erectile dysfunction. The Superior Court of Québec refused to authorise the proposed class action, concluding that the plaintiff's allegations were purely hypothetical, including the fact that there were numerous alternative possible causes for his problems. The court further held that an analysis of the evidence of proposed members of the class could only be done on an individual basis, such that a class action would be ill-suited to advance the rights of class members. The plaintiff has appealed the decision.

The 2016 decisions in Batten, Harrison, and Baratto reaffirm that certification of a pharmaceutical class action is not guaranteed and that Canadian court will exercise an important gatekeeper function at the certification stage.

Despite the welcomed decisions in Batten, Harrison, and Baratto, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court certified a proposed class action after allowing the plaintiffs leave to file supplemental evidence on the identifiable class criterion. In Sweetland v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., the plaintiffs alleged that Avandia®, a medication for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, caused cardiovascular events including heart failure, heart attacks and strokes, and that the defendants were liable for negligent design, negligent distribution and marketing, and waiver of tort. At the initial certification hearing in 2015, the court refused to certify the action, but "in the interests of fairness", permitted the plaintiffs to supplement evidence related to the identifiable class criterion, and to file a revised list of common issues. Furthermore, the court refused to dismiss the possibility of compensation based upon waiver of tort at the certification stage, and deferred the matter to the common issues trial. At the second certification hearing, the court held that it was satisfied that the evidence provided by the plaintiff, including two affidavits from individuals who were prescribed Avandia, remedied the deficiencies noted in the first certification decision to establish the existence of two or more class members.

Similarly in Dembrowski v. Bayer Inc., the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, at the initial certification hearing, granted leave to the plaintiff to file a revised litigation plan after finding that the other certification criteria had been met. At the second certification hearing, the court certified the proposed action, concluding that with some amendments, the second litigation plan was sufficient to meet the certification criteria.


A report of the defence successes of 2016 in pharmaceutical cases would also be incomplete without reporting on the 2016 decision of the Superior Court of Québec in Brousseau. As noted above, Brousseau was the first ever decision of a Canadian court ruling on the merits of a pharmaceutical product liability common issues trial.

In Brousseau, the plaintiffs alleged that class members experienced certain psychiatric reactions while taking the drug, Biaxin®, and that Abbott Laboratories failed to sufficiently inform users of the risk of these reactions. The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the action, concluding that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proof with respect to causation. The court held that the inclusion of side effects in the product monograph was not proof that the manufacturer believed there to be a causal link between the drug and the side effect and that the mere possibility of a causal link (e.g., evidence of case reports) was insufficient to prove general causation on a balance of probabilities. The plaintiffs requested an appeal of the decision, which was rejected by the Quebec Court of Appeal. The decision highlights that once a product liability case is certified, plaintiffs must still establish causation with credible and convincing scientific and expert evidence at trial.


The defence can be encouraged by these decisions, which suggest that certification of a pharmaceutical class action is not guaranteed. Where appropriate, the defence may also be encouraged to take cases to a merits hearing — either on a motion for summary judgment or trial. Canadian courts have made clear that plaintiffs must establish issues such as causation based on solid scientific and expert evidence in order to be successful on the merits.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
30 Oct 2019, Other, Toronto, Canada

The materials on the Blakes Business Class website are provided for informational purposes only. Accessing this information does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions