Canada: Court Denies Certification In Pharmaceutical Class Action

On May 7, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Martin v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC (Martin), dismissing the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class proceeding related to the pharmaceutical medicine Seroquel® for the reasons summarized below. This is the first case in Ontario to deny certification of a proposed class action involving a pharmaceutical medicine.


In Martin, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of "all persons in Canada who were prescribed and who consumed" the pharmaceutical medicine Seroquel®, an atypical antipsychotic drug. It was first approved in 1997 by Health Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

The plaintiffs in Martin alleged that Seroquel® caused various health risks to users including weight gain, diabetes "and/or related metabolic disturbances", that the defendants had failed to warn members of the proposed class about those health risks and that the defendants had been negligent in the design, development, testing, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sale of Seroquel®. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants had committed the tort of conspiracy by unlawful means and had unlawfully marketed Seroquel® for off-label (not approved by Health Canada) uses. The plaintiffs sought a disgorgement remedy (waiver of tort), punitive damages and special damages on behalf of the proposed class. The defendants denied each of the allegations against them and opposed certification.

Test for Certification

Applying the test from the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (the CPA), the Court reviewed the available evidence, considered its admissibility and ultimately held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish each of the requirements for certification.

Evidentiary Standard on Certification

The Court confirmed the well-known proposition that certification motions are "procedural in nature and not intended to provide the occasion for an exhaustive inquiry into factual questions that would fall to be determined at trial." It also confirmed that a plaintiff's evidentiary burden on certification is low; the plaintiff needs only show some "basis in fact" to meet the requirements for certification. However, it held that the Court must consider the admissible evidence, including the evidence filed by the defendants, when deciding whether the plaintiffs have met the certification criteria. Further, while the evidentiary threshold is low at certification, the Court must perform a gatekeeper function. While it is not the role of the certification judge to assess and weigh evidence or to resolve conflicts in the evidence, there is no relaxed standard as to admissibility on the certification motion – the evidence tendered must satisfy the usual criteria for admissibility.

Evidence Admissibility Issues

At the certification hearing, the defendants challenged significant portions of the evidence filed by the plaintiffs as being inadmissible, including portions of the affidavits filed from the representative plaintiffs and by a lawyer at the plaintiffs' law firm. The defendants also challenged the admissibility of affidavit evidence from the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Laura Plunkett, a U.S.-based "pharmacologist", "toxicologist", "FDA regulatory specialist" and "consultant." The defendants argued that statements made by Dr. Plunkett in her evidence were outside her area of expertise, were bald, conclusory and made without requisite foundation in fact.

Noting that the motion for certification failed regardless of the admissibility issues (and therefore it was not necessary to engage in a detailed analysis of the admissibility of the plaintiffs' evidence), the Court nevertheless considered the admissibility of Dr. Plunkett's evidence. The Court found significant portions of her evidence to be inadmissible, including opinion evidence regarding the adequacy of the Canadian warnings. The Court noted in particular that the case was about the marketing, sale and use of Seroquel® in Canada and not in the U.S. Likewise, it was Health Canada's approval of Seroquel® and the Canadian warnings that were relevant and in issue and not the actions of the FDA in the U.S. Dr. Plunkett had no Canadian training or experience and "to the extent" she had any regulatory expertise, it was "purely American". Further, the Court found that there was no evidence that Dr. Plunkett's U.S.-based expertise was transferrable to drug regulation in Canada.

Certification Criteria
Failure to Disclose a Cause of Action – Section 5(1)(a) of the CPA

Following a well-known line of cases in Ontario, the Court confirmed that the plaintiffs' pleading must be read generously to allow for inadequacies due to drafting frailties and the plaintiffs' lack of access to key documents and discovery information at the time of pleading. It confirmed that s. 5(1)(a) of the CPA will be satisfied unless the claim has a radical defect or it is plain and obvious that it cannot succeed.

In the circumstances, however, the Court found that the plaintiffs' pleading offended the most basic rules governing pleadings and that it was plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claims were bound to fail. Specifically, it found the plaintiffs' statement of claim suffered from two fundamental problems: the pleading was inconsistent in how it described the activities of each defendant; and it "lumped" the defendants together as a single enterprise and did not attempt to particularize how each defendant was liable to the proposed class for each of the causes of action alleged.

With respect to the first of these problems, the Court found that the plaintiffs' pleading created confusion and suffered from a lack of clarity as to "which defendant did what in relation to Seroquel®." Noting generally that defendants are entitled to know the precise nature of what they have allegedly done, it also found this problem was compounded by the plaintiffs' failure to identify the specific acts undertaken by each defendant.

As a matter of proper pleading, the Court held that it is inappropriate for plaintiffs to "lump" defendants together as a single enterprise, absent a pleading of material facts that would justify doing so. Here, the plaintiffs failed to identify the specific acts undertaken by each defendant with respect to each cause of action.

The Court found numerous flaws relating to each cause of action alleged and found that it was "plain and obvious" that they could not succeed. While non-exhaustive:

  • The Court held that the plaintiffs' pleading offended the Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to acknowledge the difference between the various forms of negligent activity alleged (negligent design, development, testing, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sale). By lumping these distinct types of negligence together, the plaintiffs' pleadings were "muddled" and "confused".

  • The plaintiffs failed to draw a factual distinction between approved and off-label uses of Seroquel®. The Court found the pleadings with respect to off-label use were vague, commenting that "unclear" allegations of off-label use had been "simply ... dropped into the negligence pleading."

  • With respect to the plaintiffs' allegations of negligent design, development and testing, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to identify the alleged design defect. It further held that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for liability for negligent development and testing by failing to plead that "a safer and economically more feasible alternative to Seroquel® would have been adopted, but for the defendants' negligence."

  • With respect to the allegations of negligent manufacture, the plaintiffs failed to plead anything about what was allegedly negligent about the manufacturing process. Further, there was a "complete lack of material facts in the pleading" to support this allegation.

  • With respect to the allegations of negligent distribution, marketing and sale, the plaintiffs failed to plead that Seroquel®'s "alleged propensity to injure outweighed the value of its use." Many of the plaintiffs' allegations in this regard were also essentially claims of negligent misrepresentation, for which the plaintiffs had failed to plead particulars of reliance or the damages suffered as a result.

  • The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding the defendants' alleged breach of their duty to warn. There was no indication of which particular defendant allegedly breached its duty to warn, or which defendant owed such a duty by virtue of having manufactured Seroquel®. The plaintiffs had also failed to plead what warnings were given, how they were inadequate, and whether or how they could have been improved.

  • The allegations of conspiracy were similarly problematic. They lacked clarity, precision, and the material facts necessary to support each of the elements of the cause of action of conspiracy.

Identifiable Class – Section 5(1)(b) of the CPA

With respect to s. 5(1)(b) of the CPA, the Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to provide evidence of an identifiable class.

In support of the existence of a class, the plaintiffs relied on a lawyer's affidavit to establish that the plaintiffs' firm had been contacted by more than 30 potential class members who had consumed Seroquel® for both approved and off-label uses. The lawyer's affidavit referred to similar class actions in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec in support of the existence of a class.

The Court found this evidence to be insufficient to establish an "air of reality" regarding the existence of the class. The plaintiffs had failed to lead any evidence regarding the nature of their contact with class counsel. There was also no evidence to show that any of the 30 people wished to have their common complaint heard (assuming there to be a common complaint) through a class proceedings process.
The proposed class definition was also problematic because it failed to identify the time period in issue. As such, there was no way to assess whether the proposed class was defined more widely than necessary.

Common Issues – Section 5(1)(c) of the CPA

The plaintiffs proposed 13 common issues for trial, none of which were held to meet the threshold for certification.

With respect to the proposed general causation issue – "Can Seroquel® cause weight gain, diabetes and/or related metabolic disturbances as well as secondary injuries flowing therefrom?" – the Court questioned the meaning of "metabolic disturbances as well as secondary injuries flowing therefrom", noting that this terminology was unclear and that the plaintiffs had been unable to explain what it meant. It held that the fact that a similar common issue had been certified in another case involving a similar medicine (Zyprexa®) was not a sufficient answer. Likewise, it held that the plaintiffs could not defer this question to trial on the basis that it would be explained through expert evidence. A certification judge cannot perform the task of assessing a common issue if it is unclear what it means.

The Court also considered whether a general causation issue relating to weight gain and diabetes could be assessed in common. Noting that the defendants warned regarding the risk of weight gain and diabetes, and that the answer to this question would not determine whether Seroquel® in fact caused diabetes or weight gain in any individual class member, it found that the determination of this question would mark "only the beginning of the inquiry." The plaintiffs had not provided any evidence to show that a methodology involving general population data (or some other approach) could be used to assess this issue in common and arrive at an answer that would be of any use to the class. In these circumstances, the proposed common issue constituted a "scientific question of interest" only, and was rejected.

With respect to the proposed common issue relating to off-label promotion, marketing, etc., of Seroquel®, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to lead any evidence that the defendants had promoted, marketed, etc., Seroquel® for off-label uses in Canada. The Court noted that off-label use and prescription is a common and necessary practice among physicians and patients in certain circumstances. It also held that the plaintiffs could not rely on a Settlement Agreement reached in U.S. litigation in which claims of "unapproved" use were settled by one of the named defendants. The U.S. settlement was entered into without any admission of liability on the part of the defendants and involved off-label promotion allegations in the U.S., not Canada. As such, it could not serve as "some evidence" to support certification of such a common issue in Canada.

The Court held that even if there was some evidence to support a common question relating to the plaintiffs' allegations of negligence (though there was no evidence in the Court's view), the question, as framed by the plaintiffs, was overly broad. The Court held that each of the different allegations (negligent design, development, researching, testing, recommending, advertising, promoting, and/or marketing of Seroquel®) would require an inquiry into the defendants' activities over a 14-year period. In essence, "it is a common issue that asks multiple questions". In these circumstances, the Court refused to certify the issue on the basis that it was too broad.

The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' proposed common issues related to the duty to warn. The common issue put forward by the plaintiffs assumed that a single duty to warn arose on the part of the defendants at a specific period of time. The Court held that such an assumption ignored that the defendants' duty to warn was ongoing, and would have changed over time. Further, the evidence established that the warnings in the product labelling had changed for both diabetes and weight gain over time, and were treated differently on the label over time. As such, it found that a single answer to the proposed common issue that would be common to all members of the proposed class over time was not possible. Further, even if certified, determination of this issue would result in an answer, "so general it would have no impact on the litigation."

With respect to the allegation of conspiracy, the Court found that the evidence relied on by the plaintiffs in support of this allegation was insufficient to constitute "some evidence" for the purposes of certifying a common conspiracy issue.

With respect to the remaining proposed common issues, the Court noted that each of the proposed common issues were remedial and focused on the class's entitlement to damages. Given the lack of any evidence to support any of the liability common issues, the Court found that there was no evidence to support certification of any common remedial issues. Notwithstanding this finding, the Court went on to reject each of the proposed remedial common issues on the basis that there was either no evidence to support such a common issue (waiver of tort), or that they were not appropriate in the circumstances of this case (punitive damages).

Preferable Procedure – Section 5(1)(d) of the CPA

Having found that there was no single common issue that would significantly advance the litigation for the proposed class and/or that each of the liability common issues collapsed because the issues did not have a basis in fact and lacked commonality, the Court found there was no basis on which to conclude that a class action would be a fair, efficient and manageable method of advancing the claim.

The Representative Plaintiff and a Workable Litigation Plan – Section 5(1)(e) of the CPA

The Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to put forward a suitable representative plaintiff. Based on the evidence, it had "serious" concerns as to whether the proposed representative plaintiffs had a sufficient level of interest and understanding of the action. It also found a lack of evidence demonstrating that their claims were "anchored in" the class actions, given their individual medical histories. These medical histories provided no evidence that their weight gain and diabetes had been caused by Seroquel®. Further, there was no evidence that the warnings in the product label were inadequate with respect to the weight gain and diabetes allegedly experienced by the proposed representative plaintiffs.

While the Court noted that the plaintiffs' work plan provided much of the usual detail that the Court expects to see, it described the work plan as a work of fiction "because there are no common issues that have been accepted".


The Martin decision will be helpful in opposing certification of a proposed pharmaceutical class action, especially where the product has not been recalled and remains on the market with Health Canada's approval. It remains to be seen whether this decision represents the beginning of a trend away from the certification of pharmaceutical class actions in Ontario, or whether it will be viewed as a decision that turned on the specific manner in which the claim was pleaded.

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
27 Oct 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.

1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

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.