Canada: Andersen v. St. Jude Medical: Whither Waiver Of Tort?

Class action litigants have long been awaiting a trial decision that would tackle the controversial doctrine of waiver of tort.

At the certification stage of proposed class proceedings, plaintiffs have been asserting waiver of tort alongside negligence and other tort claims, arguing that the waiver of tort doctrine should allow the court to order defendants to account for and disgorge the profits gained from the impugned conduct if a finding of negligence is made. This would effectively eliminate the traditional need for claimants to prove injury or loss in order to obtain an order for payment of damages. Most judges have punted the tough questions regarding waiver of tort to trial, on the theory that a full factual record was needed to decide them.

On June 26, 2012, Justice Lax of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued the decision in Andersen v. St. Jude Medical.1 Having found for the defendants, Justice Lax declined to decide this policy issue and expressly noted that the full factual record in this long common issues trial was not helpful in deciding the issue. It is hoped that this guidance will lead quickly to much-needed clarity in this important area. The case is also noteworthy for the approach taken in several other important aspects of class action product liability cases.


Andersen involved a claim against a global manufacturer of mechanical prosthetic heart valves. At its core, this was a negligence claim, focusing on whether there had been a breach of duty causing injury. Following 138 days of trial evidence and several months of legal arguments, Justice Lax dismissed the plaintiffs' claim in its entirety. The lengthy, thoughtful decision provides guidance on the role of scientific experts, epidemiological studies, and proof of causation through scientific expert evidence, in addition to tackling the doctrine of waiver of tort.

At issue was a prosthetic heart valve with a cuff coated with a proprietary mixture called "Silzone." The Silzone valve was designed to directly reduce the incidence of post-operative infection by inhibiting the growth of bacteria. The plaintiffs alleged that Silzone interfered with tissue healing and impaired the body's ability to incorporate the device into the heart properly, leading to serious medical complications.

In January 2000, St. Jude voluntarily recalled all Silzone-coated products after its own ongoing randomized clinical trial, AVERT, revealed a small but statistically significant increase in a medical complication. 

Approach to Expert Evidence

A key issue in the case was the reliability of the scientific experts. Justice Lax assessed the extensive expert evidence on the basis of a generally accepted hierarchy within the scientific literature of epidemiological studies that help investigate causal relationships.2 The defendants' experts relied primarily on data from the AVERT study, a randomized clinical trial considered to be at the top of the hierarchy. The plaintiffs' experts relied on data from cohort studies, case studies, and case reports, which were not as robust and thus lower in the hierarchy.

Breach of Standard of Care

The plaintiffs alleged that St. Jude's testing of Silzone was inadequate and that Silzone was rushed onto the market. The parties agreed that, in determining whether Silzone should be made available to the market, St. Jude was required to perform a risk utility assessment. This assessment requires the manufacturer to weigh both the gravity and likelihood of the reasonably foreseeable risks posed by the product, relative to the potential extent of its utility and the likelihood that the potential utility could be realized.3

Justice Lax found no evidence that Silzone was rushed onto the market at the expense of completing appropriate product evaluation, despite the plaintiffs' assertions that St. Jude prioritized profits over product safety. She noted that, while it would be naïve to think the company was unconcerned by profit, this does not mean St. Jude fell below the standard of care.4

Justice Lax concluded that there was a demand for an antimicrobial heart valve and St. Jude had appropriately tested and weighed the potential utility of Silzone with its risks.  She found that the plaintiffs had not shown that additional tests were possible or would have affected the risk utility assessment.

The Court also considered whether St. Jude effectively monitored the Silzone products so as to issue warnings and/or recall the product within a reasonable timeframe. Significantly, St. Jude had already warned of the adverse events alleged by the plaintiffs in its labeling and physicians' manual. Justice Lax found that St. Jude met its standard of care by investigating concerns, sending out a "Dear Doctor" letter, and maintaining an open dialogue with Health Canada and the FDA. When the AVERT study began to yield data that raised concerns, St. Jude ended enrolment in AVERT and issued a recall of Silzone products. Prior to this time, the available information did not indicate an additional risk that would have reasonably required an updated warning or some other action.


Justice Lax's findings on causation, specifically, whether Silzone materially contributed to medical complications, were made largely on the expert evidence. Justice Lax decided that the scientific literature supported the conclusion that Silzone does not materially increase the risk of medical complications.

To determine materiality, Justice Lax would have applied a risk ratio of 2.0, meaning the probability of developing a medical complication was double when Silzone patients were compared with non-Silzone patients. In effect, if the epidemiological evidence demonstrated a risk ratio above 2.0, this would presumptively determine causation on a balance of probabilities, absent evidence presented by the defendant to rebut the presumption; a risk ratio below 2.0 would presumptively disprove causation, absent individualized evidence presented by a class member to rebut the presumption.5 This serves as useful guidance on available approaches to determining causation in a class action context, as more class actions begin to proceed to trials on the merits.

Waiver of Tort

Allowing claims based on waiver of tort essentially eliminates the plaintiff's need to prove loss, so long as the plaintiff proves that the defendant engaged in some wrongdoing. Deciding on the types of wrongdoing to which it should apply engages policy concerns about the role of tort law as a compensatory mechanism. At trial, Professor Michael Trebilcock put forward the opinion that the waiver of tort doctrine would create a "super-compensatory" regime whereby plaintiffs could be overcompensated if the defendant's gain from its wrongful conduct exceeded the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. He testified that this was undesirable because it would destabilize the deterrence and insurance functions of tort law and could deter socially productive activities.6 

Justice Lax found no wrongdoing by St. Jude and therefore did not need to consider liability under the waiver of tort doctrine. She stated, however, that her experience from the trial indicated that a full factual record was not required in order to resolve the waiver of tort debate, and indeed may not require evidence at all – ultimately, it is a policy decision that hopefully will be made in the near future.


The Andersen decision is one more milestone in Canadian class proceedings and represents a further maturation of the class action regime under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. It evidences the complexity inherent in a common issues trial, particularly one that is largely driven by expert evidence. Further, Andersen is among the growing list of cases such as Kerr v.Danier Leather and Pearson v. Inco, which reflect that a win for the plaintiffs at certification is merely the first step in a long road with many risks.


Andersen v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 2012 ONSC 3660 (Andersen).

Andersen at paras. 48 and 366, as articulated in Rothwell v. Raes, (1988) 66 OR 449 (HCJ), aff'd (1990) 2 OR (3d) 332 (CA), leave to appeal refused [1991] SCCA No 58.

Andersen at para. 62.

Andersen at paras. 73-74.

5  Andersen at para. 556.

6  For example, Professor Trebilcock explained that allowing waiver of tort in negligence cases may cause sellers to take socially excessive precautions on the market, take products off the market, under-invest in product innovation, and charge higher prices.

David Morritt was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1984 after serving as law clerk to Mr. Justice Estey at the Supreme Court of Canada. Sonia Bjorkquist has extensive experience in trial advocacy with expertise in commercial arbitration and the defence of large class actions. Lauren Tomasich practices corporate-commercial civil litigation, with particular emphasis on class actions defence, securities litigation and product liability matters. Patrick Welsh has a broad corporate-commercial litigation and dispute resolution practice, with experience in environmental law and litigation and environmental due diligence.

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.

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
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