Canada: The New Canada Consumer Product Safety Act: A Catalyst For Cross-Border Mass Tort Litigation?

Edited by Keith Batten.

New and expanded product safety legislation in Canada, superimposed on a backdrop of jurisdictions willing to certify mass tort and personal injury claims, has created an environment ripe for increasing class action activity across the U.S./Canada border. Thus, the development of the law governing cross-border production issues bears watching.

Mass tort claims north of the 49th parallel are a popular choice for plaintiffs' counsel in part because of the perception that the certification of personal injury claims is less onerous in Canada. There is no national class action legislation. Class actions legislation of some type exists in all provinces except one, Price Edward Island. In Ontario, class actions are governed by the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and must first be certified by a court before they can proceed. Importantly, unlike the American regime, there is no requirement that common issues predominate over individual issues under the Ontario statute Western Canadian Shopping Centres v. Dalton: (2001). Instead, common issues relating to duty of care, whether a defect exists, and the state of the manufacturer's knowledge of the defect may satisfy the common issues threshold in the appropriate case despite the necessity of individualized assessment of causation and damages, if it is found that they will "advance the litigation" and "avoid duplication of fact finding or legal analysis": Ford v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (2005).

In addition, Ontario courts appear willing to recognize 'world-wide classes' of claimants who, while having a connection with a tort committed in a Canadian jurisdiction, reside internationally. In Canada, jurisdiction of a court over the parties and subject matter in a claim is determined by way of a 'real and substantial connection' test.

In Ramdath v. George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology (2010) the Ontario Superior Court certified a class of international students. In this case, the plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against a college alleging that the course calendar for its International Business Management Program misrepresented the benefits of the program and that it falsely stated that the program would allow them to obtain three industry designations in addition to the college certificate. Importantly, the proposed class consisted of students who took the program in Toronto, but resided in China and India at the time that the claim was brought. Ramdath is arguably limited to its facts (including the relative lack of access to a comparable class actions framework for non-resident class members). The recent case of Silver v. Imax (2009) suggests, however, that Ontario courts will certify classes extending beyond their borders despite the existence of parallel proceedings. Here, the plaintiffs sought certification of a class proceeding alleging misrepresentation in the secondary securities market as well as a statutory claim under the Canadian Securities Act. The plaintiffs proposed a global class of claims consisting of everyone, including non-residents, who held IMAX shares during the period in issue. The trial judge allowed the certification of a global class and found that there was authority to certify an international class provided there was a "real and substantial connection" to the jurisdiction.

An appeal of the certification decision in IMAX to the Ontario Divisional Court was dismissed. Justice Corbett endorsed the reasons of the trial judge, but also alluded to the possibility of overlapping class proceedings in different jurisdictions. Specifically, it was held that, "[t]he proceedings are and should be complementary, to achieve a proper vindication of the rights of plaintiffs, fair process for the defendants and plaintiffs, respect for the autonomous jurisdictions involved, and an integrated and efficient resolution of claims. This requires common sense, judicial comity, and fair process. It does not require balkanization of class proceedings, but rather sensitive integration of them".

Following Ramdath and IMAX, it is plausible that future Canadian courts will accept jurisdiction in global mass tort claims involving non-residents in circumstances where the product is designed, manufactured, sold or distributed from Canada.

The relationship between product recalls and class actions is well established by case law, with many examples of class actions following product recalls. At the same time, and over the last decade, there have been increasing class actions across the Canada/U.S. border, particularly in the area of mass tort and products liability with a developing trend of mass tort products liability claims migrating to Canada. It is suggested that the ability to recycle aspects of U.S. proceedings and the lower threshold for certification in Canada are factors leading to the export of products litigation.

This relationship is only likely to be solidified as a result of new product safety legislation. In the period since the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (2010) (CCPSA) came into force, counsel and their clients have been waiting for the first public recall reports. The interest in the CCPSA stems from its requirement that those who manufacture, import or sell consumer products in Canada report all incidents related to the product to Health Canada. Importantly, the scope of what constitutes an "incident" extends to worldwide recalls or other actions taken by foreign governments regarding the product in question. In addition, Health Canada now has authority to unilaterally initiate product recalls. The CCPSA may therefore draw significant attention to multinational consumer product companies who either conduct business in Canada or sell products in Canada and abroad.

As a result of a combination of these two factors ((i) robust reporting and recall legislation; and (ii) fertile ground for mass tort class actions), manufacturers and their counsel will want to pay very careful attention to instances of recall and reporting under the CCPSA. They will also want to pay careful attention to the important procedural implications of cross-border products liability class actions, two of which are discussed below.

I. The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act: A New Recall and Oversight Regime

The scope of the CCPSA is broad. It not only applies to manufacturers, but also to those who import and sell the product. Pursuant to section 14, upon becoming aware of an incident related to a product, importers, manufacturers, or those who sell a consumer product must report the incident to Health Canada within two days. A written report detailing the incident, the products involved, any products that could be involved in a similar incident and any measures proposed to be taken with respect to the products, must be filed within ten days.

Section 14 of the CCPSA defines 'incident' very broadly. It includes, "an occurrence in Canada or elsewhere that resulted or may reasonably have been expected to result in an individual's death or in serious adverse effects on their health, including serious injury." A recall initiated by a foreign entity for human health or safety reasons is an 'incident' for the purposes of the CCPSA.

Prior to the enactment of the CCPSA, product recalls in Canada operated on a voluntary basis by the manufacturer. As a result of section 31, however, the Minister of Health (Health Canada), has been granted statutory authority to oversee the recall of consumer products. By virtue of section 31, if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a consumer product is a danger to human health and safety, he or she may order that the manufacturer, importer or seller recall the product.

The CCPSA also provides the Minister of Health with wide ranging authority to order manufacturers and importers to take measures in response to recalled and dangerous products. Under section 32, Health Canada may order a manufacturer, importer, seller, or advertiser of a consumer product to take measures such as: stopping the manufacturing, importation, packaging, storing, advertising, sale, labeling, testing or transportation of the consumer product. Health Canada may also order any measure that it considers necessary to remedy non-compliance with the CCPSA or the regulations. The Minister may also order these measures if there has been a voluntary recall undertaken by the manufacturer or importer.

Section 33 of the CCPSA grants the Minister of Health the authority to carry out a recall or measure at the person's expense if there has been non-compliance with an order under sections 31 and 32.

Finally, by virtue of sections 16, 17 and 18 of the CCPSA, confidential business information may be disclosed where the information relates to a serious and imminent danger to human health and safety, where the disclosure of the information is essential to address the danger. This information may be disclosed to other persons, governmental bodies and the general public. Importantly, the decision as to whether to disclose confidential information is made unilaterally by Health Canada.

Under the CCPSA, the Minister of Health is granted the authority to make a wide array of regulations related to the sale and marketing of consumer products, as well as the recall and communication requirements under the CCPSA. Presently, 33 regulations have been enacted. At this point, there are no enacted regulations related to the recall of products, communication of warnings, or to the measures that Health Canada may order under section 32. Over time it is expected that additional regulations will be enacted to address these sections of the CCPSA.

II. Procedural Implications of Cross-Border Mass Tort Claims

On the assumption that the CCPSA will contribute to the growing trend of cross-border mass tort class actions, the differences between production and disclosure obligations in Canada and the U.S. may create significant tactical implications for counsel and clients involved in cross-border litigation.

A) Discovery in Parallel Canada-U.S. Claims

In the case of parallel class actions brought in Canadian and American jurisdictions, the use of documentary production in one action for the benefit of another is a developing trend. While protective orders are typically issued in the U.S., American counsel should be aware that protective orders are not necessarily a bar to plaintiff's access to discovery evidence in a parallel action in Canada.

In the case of Vitapharm v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd (2001) (Ontario), Canadian plaintiffs in parallel price fixing litigation sought access to U.S. discovery evidence. To obtain the evidence, the Canadian plaintiffs applied to intervene in the U.S. proceeding in order to modify the protective order. Subsequently, the defendants brought a motion in Canada to prevent the plaintiffs from accessing the discovery documents. The case settled before the American court was able to address the issue. However, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the defendants' motion and held that the court should not require the plaintiffs to withdraw their application to intervene. It was held that the plaintiffs' motion was brought for the purpose of saving time and money in the Canadian proceedings. Justice Cumming further explained that access to the discovery evidence in the U.S. was consistent with the three policy objectives of the Class Proceedings Act, being: facilitating access to justice, judicial efficiency and behaviour modification. The case of In Re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa. 2004), is an example of a successful motion to intervene granting plaintiffs in the Canadian proceeding access to all discovery in the U.S. action.

While there is precedent for modification of protective orders in the U.S. to allow Canadian plaintiffs to obtain discovery evidence, we await a decision on the issue of whether parallel U.S. claimants will be able to obtain discovery evidence from actions first commenced in Canada.

In Ontario, Rule 30.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provide for a 'deemed undertaking' whereby all parties and their lawyers are deemed to undertake not to use evidence or information for any purposes other than for the proceeding in which the evidence was obtained. Subsection 8 provides for limited relief from a deemed undertaking if a court is satisfied that "the interest of justice outweighs any prejudice that would result to a party who disclosed evidence".

Prior to the codification of the deemed undertaking rule, a common law 'implied undertaking' rule applied. The scope of the implied undertaking was addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Goodman v Rossi (1995). In this case, the court highlighted the general U.S. rule that "a party obtaining documents through the discovery process has the right to use them for any purpose unless the other party has obtained a protective order with respect to their use". In Ontario, the U.S. approach was not intended to be adopted with discovery intended to operate under an implied undertaking not to make use of evidence for any other purpose than the proceedings in which it was produced.

Recent Canadian jurisprudence suggests a shift away from strict adherence to the deemed undertaking rule in the context of parallel proceedings. In Logan et al. v. Harper et al. (2004), plaintiffs in a group of class actions suing for damages suffered as a result of temporomandibular joint implants, brought a successful motion for relief from the deemed undertaking rule so that production could be shared amongst the parties in 37 actions. In allowing the motion, Master MacLeod explained, "the [deemed undertaking rule] was never intended to act as a complete barrier to co-operation between counsel representing various plaintiffs in parallel litigation in which a defending party had the same or similar production obligations". The court further stated that while the rule was intended to prevent plaintiffs from using discovery information to launch a different proceeding, "this does not mean that in parallel actions under common case management each plaintiff should have to go through a process of discovery and production and purposely blind themselves to knowledge concerning what information exists and is properly producible".

While Logan involved parallel national claims, the court's reasons and the result in Vitapharm v. F. Hoffman–LaRoche Ltd. suggest that discovery evidence from a Canadian proceeding may be available to U.S. plaintiffs pursuing a parallel class action with similar common issues.

B) Litigation Privilege and the Work-Product Rule in Canada and the United States

There are significant differences in the Canadian and U.S. approaches to the privilege attached to third party information and solicitor work product. It is important to take note of the cross-border differences relating to the protection of this information.

In both Canada and the United States, litigation or work-product privilege, has been recognized to create a zone of privacy around counsel as they prosecute or defend an action. While Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the U.S. provides an exception, whereby a party may obtain work-product if "it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means", Canadian common law does not generally recognize a similar exception. As a result, during the active prosecution or defence of an action, third party and lawyer opinions and conclusions are generally not discoverable in Canada.

A second difference between the two approaches is that in the U.S. work-product is given a perpetual protection. The Canadian common law protection is time-limited and ceases to apply upon the termination of the litigation. The differences between the Canadian and American approaches to solicitor work-product must be carefully considered. With the liberalization of cross-border discovery, manufacturers and their counsel must be aware that opinions and conclusions formed in the course of a Canadian parallel action may become discoverable by American plaintiffs at its conclusion. Conversely, Canadian Courts may order disclosure of documents that otherwise meet the test for privilege in the American jurisdiction when the documents were created.


While no actions have yet been brought as a result of the recall and reporting requirements in the CCPSA, these provisions will result in the public disclosure of all globally known serious incidents. This requirement has the potential to spark considerable mass tort products liability litigation in Canada, as well as parallel actions in the United States.

The availability of international classes and a track record of certifying mass tort claims resulting in personal injury will continue to make Canada a destination jurisdiction. While currently in a fairly primitive state, it is anticipated that the law governing cross-border production of documents will develop rapidly in the next several years.

About BLG

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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