On June 22, 2023, in McGee v. Dr. Farazli (McGee), the Ontario Divisional Court (Divisional Court) overturned the certification of an action for increased risk of harm in a proposed class proceeding. This appellate decision affirms recent jurisprudence across the country that a cause of action for damages for increased risk of harm cannot be sustained at law.
Background
Approximately 6,800 patients received a letter from Ottawa
Public Health (OPH) advising that there was a low risk that they
had been exposed to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C or HIV at the
appellant's endoscopy clinic. The letter cited a lapse in the
sterilization protocols at the clinic as the reason for this risk.
Patients were further advised that blood testing was available to
assess their viral status. Upon completion of its review, OPH
concluded that there was no transmission of Hepatitis B or C or HIV
within the clinic where the lapse occurred.
The proposed representative plaintiff received the notification
letter, underwent testing and was advised that she had not been
exposed to Hepatitis B or C or HIV. She commenced a class action
seeking compensation for exposure to an increased risk of
infection, as well as for the shock, trauma and inconvenience she
allegedly experienced as a result of receiving the notification
letter and the testing that followed.
While some patients tested positive for one of the blood-borne
diseases, it was not possible to establish whether the infection
was transmitted at the clinic. The plaintiff's own expert
conceded that the passage of time since the event made it
impossible to causally link any infections to the clinic.
The certification judge certified liability for increased risk as a
common issue, but did not address whether a cause of action for
damages for increased risk alone was sustainable at law.
Divisional Court Decision
The Divisional Court overturned the certification decision,
holding that the certification judge erred in certifying a common
issue based on a claim for increased risk of harm.
Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v.
Babstock and the Ontario Superior Court's decision in
Palmer v. Teva Canada Ltd.
(Palmer), the Divisional Court affirmed that there is no
right to be free from the prospect of damage. Rather,
there is only the right not to suffer damage that results
from exposure to unreasonable risk. The mere creation of risk is
not wrongful conduct.
The Divisional Court also held that, because there is no cause of
action for increased risk of harm, a claim for economic losses that
arises in response to an increased risk of harm is also not
sustainable. The quantum of economic damages must pass a de
minimis threshold: an action for compensation should not be
set in motion on account of a trivial injury. As well, any anxiety
experienced as a result of learning of an increased risk of harm
must rise to the level of serious trauma or illness to be
compensable. Claims for anxiety associated with an increased risk
of harm are not compensable — it is only anxiety associated
with the materialization of that risk that is compensable.
Key Takeaways
McGee comes on the heels of two other recent product liability cases, Palmer and Dussiaume v. Sandoz Canada Inc., both of which are currently under appeal. Those cases also held that Canadian law does not provide remedies for an increased risk of harm. Mere creation of risk is not actionable conduct in the absence of a present manifestation of the harm.
For permission to reprint articles, please contact the Blakes Marketing Department.
© 2020 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.
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.