Canada: Be Careful What You Wish For: A Canadian Perspective on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising And The ‘Learned Intermediary’ Rule

Last Updated: September 7 2004

By Barry Leon, Esq., and Cynthia Tape, Esq.*

Published in Andrews Litigation Reporter: Drug Recall, June 2004.

"Our medical-legal jurisprudence is based on images of health care that no longer exist." So begins the judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories Inc., the one court in the United States to hold that the manufacturer of a prescription drug may not rely on the "learned-intermediary" rule if it engages in direct-to-consumer advertising of that product.1

While no other U.S. court appears to have followed New Jersey’s decision, significant changes in the marketing of prescription drugs and consumer participation in health care decision-making suggest that a re-evaluation of the learned-intermediary rule in Canada may lie ahead.

Rationale for the Learned-Intermediary Rule

Under Canadian law, the general rule is that the manufacturer of a product has a duty to warn the ultimate consumer of any material risks associated with the product’s use. In the case of certain types of products, however, an exemption is granted where a "learned intermediary" inevitably intervenes between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer. In that situation, "a manufacturer may satisfy its informational duty to the consumer by providing a warning to what the American courts have, in recent years, termed a ‘learned intermediary.’"2

Thus, a prescription drug manufacturer can discharge its duty to warn by informing the prescribing physician (the classic learned intermediary) of the material risks. The rationale for the learned-intermediary rule was explained by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Buchan v. Ortho Pharmaceutical (Canada) Ltd.:

[P]rescription drugs are more likely to be complex medicines, esoteric in formula and varied in effect and, by definition, are available only by prescription. The prescribing physician is in a position to take into account the propensities of the drug and susceptibilities of his patient. He has a duty of informing himself of the benefits and potential dangers of any medications he prescribes, and of exercising his independent judgment as a medical expert based on his knowledge of the patient and the product. In taking the drug, the patient is expected to, and it can be presumed does, place primary reliance on his doctor’s judgment.3

Exception for Certain Types of Drugs

In keeping with this rationale, the learned-intermediary rule has been applied in the context of prescription drugs and medical devices but not to intermediaries in other contexts.4 The defense may not, however, apply to all prescription drug products.

Buchan involved the adequacy of the warnings given by Ortho Pharmaceutical to consumers and physicians about certain risks associated with an oral contraceptive product. In considering the learned-intermediary rule, the Court of Appeal noted that most jurisdictions in the United States recognized the rule without exception. However, a number of state courts had established an exception in the case of oral contraceptives because those courts considered that type of drug to have "vastly different" characteristics:

The oral contraceptive thus stands apart from other prescription drugs in light of the heightened participation of patients in decisions relating to the use of "the pill"; the substantial risks affiliated with the product’s use; the feasibility of direct warnings by the manufacturer to the user; the limited participation of the physician (annual prescriptions); and the possibility that oral communications between physicians and consumers may be insufficient or too scanty standing alone fully to apprise consumers of the product’s dangers at the time the initial selection of a contraceptive method is made as well as at subsequent points when alternative methods may be considered.5

The Court of Appeal ultimately decided Buchan on the basis that the warning given by Ortho to physicians was inadequate. While it was thus unnecessary to decide whether the manufacturer of an oral contraceptive was under a common-law duty to warn consumers directly, the judge referred to a 1970 advisory report on the safety and efficacy of oral contraceptives and then commented in obiter as follows:

As the advisory committee pointed out, "in prescribing [oral contraceptives], the doctor is usually acting neither to treat nor to prevent a disease. He is prescribing for socioeconomic reasons." Furthermore, unlike the selection of an appropriate drug for the treatment of illness or injury where patient involvement is typically minimal or non-existent, consumer demand for oral contraceptives prompts their use more often than doctors’ advice. The decision to use the pill is one in which consumers are actively involved; more frequently than not, they have made the decision before visiting a doctor to obtain a prescription.

For these reasons, … I am of the view that oral contraceptives bear characteristics distinguishing them from most therapeutic, diagnostic and curative prescription drugs. The rationale underlying the learnedintermediary rule, in my opinion, does not hold up in the case of oral contraceptives.6

Could the Exception Become the Rule?

The reasons expressed by the Court of Appeal in Buchan for acknowledging an exception to the learned-intermediary rule in the case of oral contraceptives might arguably apply to other drugs as well, now more than ever.

The "doctor knows best" paradigm is waning as consumers take a more active interest in health products and health care decision-making. At the same time, pharmaceutical companies are seeking to have more direct marketing contact with potential customers. "Lifestyle" drugs to treat "lifestyle disorders" are reportedly a growth industry.7

In this changing health care environment, courts may begin to apply the commentary in Buchan more widely. This has already happened in one case in the United States — Perez, referred to above — as a result of direct-to-consumer advertising.

In Perez, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a manufacturer that engages in DTC advertising is not entitled to rely on the learned-intermediary rule.8 The court reviewed the following pillars on which the learnedintermediary doctrine is based and held that none of them applies in today’s health care environment:

• Reluctance to undermine the doctor-patient relationship;

• No need for informed consent in an era of "doctor knows best";

• Inability of a drug manufacturer to communicate with patients; and

• Complexity of the subject matter.

As a result, the Perez court concluded as follows:

The question in this case, broadly stated, is whether our law should follow these changes in the marketplace or reflect the images of the past. We believe that when mass marketing of prescription drugs seeks to influence a patient’s choice of a drug, a pharmaceutical manufacturer that makes direct claims to consumers for the efficacy of its product should not be unqualifiedly relieved of the duty to provide proper warnings of the dangers or side effects of the product. 9

In the United States, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription products was tightly controlled by the Food and Drug Administration until the late 1990s. Before then, advertising of prescription products (including prescription drugs and medical devices) was permitted under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but there was a statutory requirement that advertising include information about the product’s potential side effects, contraindications and overall effectiveness.10

While it was feasible to include this information in print media advertising, compliance was practically impossible for broadcast media. The situation changed in the late 1990s when the statutory requirements were relaxed for broadcast advertising.11 As a result, ads for prescription drugs are now commonly seen on U.S. television and are freely transmitted into Canada as well.

In Canada, however, there is a broad prohibition against DTC advertising. Canada’s Food and Drugs Act prohibits the advertising of "any food, drug, cosmetic or device to the general public as a treatment, preventative or cure for any of the diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states referred to in Schedule A."12 Schedule A is a comprehensive list of diseases and abnormal states, including arthritis, cancer, depression, diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, hyper/hypotension, kidney disease, liver disease, obesity and tumors.

In addition, the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act do not allow prescription drugs to be advertised to the general public, except for representations as to the "brand name, proper name, common name, price and quantity of the drug."13 As a result, the advertising of prescription drugs directly to consumers is constrained.

In recent years, however, Health Canada has been considering whether restrictions on such advertising should be eased, as they have in the United States. In 1999, for instance, the Health Products and Food Branch sought input from stakeholders on the objectives, considerations and policy options relating to DTC advertising of prescription drugs in Canada.14 And studies are being carried out on the impact of DTC advertising on consumers, physicians and the health care system in Canada.15

If the restrictions are relaxed, the consequences of such a change for drug manufacturers may be significant. Direct-to-consumer advertising may be good medicine for pharmaceutical companies’ bottom lines, but Perez may signal that an unexpected and unwelcome side effect could be in store.


1. Perez v. Wyeth Labs. Inc., 734 A.2d 1245 at 1246 (N.J. 1999).

2. Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634 at 658.

3. Buchan v. Ortho Pharm. (Canada) Ltd. (1986), 54 O.R. (2d) 92 at 103 (C.A.). See also Hollis, supra note 2 at 658, citing Reyes v. Wyeth Labs., 498 F.2d 1264 at 1276 (5th Cir. 1974).

4. See, for example, Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210 (builder of an oil rig is not a learned intermediary), and Guimond Estate v. Fiberglas Canada Inc., (1999), 207 N.B.R. (2d) 355 (Q.B.), aff’d 221 N.B.R. (2d) 119 (C.A.) (manufacturer could not rely on warnings given to a retailer to satisfy its duty to warn consumers about the health risks of styrene).

5. Buchan, supra note 3 at 104.

6. Buchan, supra note 3 at 122.

7. "The disease-specific characteristics and psychosocial factors associated with lifestyle disorders make them perfectly suited for direct-to-consumer advertising." The Lifestyle Drugs Outlook to 2007: Challenges and opportunities in a high-profile growth market, Reuters Business Insight, New Strategic Management Report, excerpt at

8. The drug at issue was Norplant, a contraceptive surgically implanted under the skin of a patient.

9. Perez, supra note 1 at 1247. The court did not leave pharmaceutical companies completely exposed, however. It held that a manufacturer that has complied with regulatory requirements for drug advertising, labeling and warnings is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the duty to warn has been appropriately discharged.

10. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(n); 21 C.F.R. pt. 202.1.

11. See U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry: Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements (August 1999), available at handbook/.

12. Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27, s. 3(1).

13. Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C. c. 870, s. C.01.044.

14. See, for example, Discussion Document: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs (Apr. 6, 1999), available at

15. See, for example, B. Mintzes et al., An Assessment of the Health System Impacts of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Medicines (DTCA), available on the Web site of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia; the executive summary is available at hpru/pdf/dtca-v1-execsum.pdf. See also B. Mintzes et al., How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA," 169(5) C.M.A.J. 405 (Sept. 2, 2003).s

* Barry Leon practices business litigation, including class actions, intellectual property litigation, products liability litigation and technology litigation. Cynthia Tape practices intellectual property law and litigation primarily in the field of pharmaceuticals, and food and drug regulatory law. Torys LLP is a U.S.-Canadian business law firm with more than 330 lawyers and offices in New York and Toronto.

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
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