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

Last Updated: April 1 2012
Article by Cheryl M. Woodin

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2016

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 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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.