Canada: Year In Review: Some Positive Developments For Pharmaceutical Class Actions In Canada

The end of 2016 brought with it some good news for the defence in respect of pharmaceutical class actions, including a successful defence verdict in the first pharmaceutical product liability common issues trial in Canada. In 2016, Canadian courts also signalled a willingness to embrace summary judgment as a potential tool for early resolution of class proceedings and confirmed once again that an innovator (brand name) manufacturer does not owe a duty of care to generic users of the medicine. Defendants also achieved significant successes in resisting certification of proposed pharmaceutical class actions, despite the frequent certification of such actions in Canada. The key decisions from 2016 in respect of pharmaceutical class actions are briefly summarized below.


Two decisions in 2016 show the Ontario courts embracing the cultural shift called for by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, and the move away from the conventional trial, in the interests of fairness and proportionality.

In Wise v. Abbott Laboratories Limited (Wise),the representative plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) alleging that AndroGel", a testosterone replacement therapy for the treatment of hypogonadism (testosterone deficiency) in men, caused serious cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes, and that AndroGel was sold by Abbott as a remedy for "LowT", despite having no therapeutic benefits. Abbott denied all claims of negligence and brought a motion for summary judgment in advance of certification to dismiss the action on a number of grounds including that the plaintiff could not prove general causation, a constituent element in all product liability claims. Ultimately, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the defendant's motion, concluding, among other reasons, that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because there was insufficient evidence of general causation.

2016 also saw plaintiffs embracing summary judgment on the general causation issue. In Levac v. James (Levac), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice not only certified the action, but also granted the plaintiff partial judgment against the defendant doctor. While not a pharmaceutical case, the motion has potential application in that context. The action arose from an infectious disease outbreak at a clinic where the defendant doctor administered epidural injections. The representative plaintiff alleged that the doctor, who was personally colonized with the bacteria, was responsible for the outbreak and was negligent because he implemented substandard infection prevention and control practices.

On the summary judgment motion, the court found that the doctor owed a duty of care to class members, that he breached this duty and that general causation had been established for all class members. On the evidence, there was no dispute that the doctor's breach of the duty of care could be a source of harm to patients, making the case appropriate for summary judgment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice not only found that general causation had been established for all class members, but that specific causation had also been established for those class members who were infected with the same bacteria as the doctor — a finding that was made in the absence of individual issues trials.

Both Wise and Levac suggest that we can expect to see greater use of summary judgment motions in the pharmaceutical class action context.


In the 2016 decision in Brown v. Janssen (Brown), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed Goodridge v. Pfizer Inc. (Goodridge) — that an innovator brand name drug manufacturer owes no duty of care to consumers of generic versions of the drug manufactured and sold by a generic competitor. The decision is one of the few cases in Canada to date to consider innovator liability.

In Brown, the plaintiffs' proposed class action alleged that the antipsychotic medicine Risperdal® caused gynecomastia, a condition of male breast growth, and that the defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of both Risperdal and generic risperidone about the risk of developing gynecomastia. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants knew or ought to have known that manufacturers of generic risperidone "would be bound by Health Canada's regulations to reproduce exactly in the product monographs for generic risperidone the safety data in the product monographs for Risperdal, such that prescribers and consumers of generic risperidone would necessarily be relying on safety data presented by the defendants in the product monographs for Risperdal."

The innovator defendants in Brown argued that Goodridge and other cases had already refused to impose a duty of care on a manufacturer for products manufactured by others, and that even if the court wished to reconsider the question of innovator liability, no such duty of care should be recognized. Among other arguments, the defendants argued that allowing such liability would make brand name manufacturers de facto insurers for the whole industry, and that this involved policy choices more appropriately within the legislative domain. The court in Brown ultimately granted the defendants' request to strike all allegations of innovator liability in the plaintiffs' amended claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims relating to generic risperidone had no reasonable chance of success.

A similar victory in favour of innovators was also obtained this past year at a trial in Quebec. In Brousseau c. Laboratoires Abbott ltée (Brousseau), the first pharmaceutical product liability common issues trial in Canada (discussed below), the Superior Court of Québec affirmed that individuals who consumed generic versions of a drug have no claim against the manufacturer of the innovator drug under Quebec civil law.


2016 also saw important defence verdicts in respect of proposed class certification. While pharmaceutical class actions are frequently certified in Canada, three proposed class actions were denied certification in 2016. In Batten v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. (Batten), the plaintiffs sought certification of a class action related to the anticoagulant drug, Pradaxa®. The plaintiffs alleged that Pradaxa® carried the risk of excessive bleeding and that Boehringer breached its duty to warn that there was no antidote for the drug. At the certification motion, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected this claim, finding on the evidence that there was no basis in fact to conclude that the absence of an antidote was a danger in the ordinary use of the medicine, and even if the absence of an antidote was a danger in ordinary use, there was no basis in fact to conclude that the absence of an antidote was a danger common to all class members. The proposed common causation issue also failed the commonality test because of the absence of a methodology to prove general causation. Accordingly, the court denied certification.

In Harrison v. Afexa Life Sciences Inc. (Harrison), the British Columbia Supreme Court denied class certification in a case involving the over the counter product Cold- Fx. The plaintiff alleged that the labelling, packaging and marketing of Cold-Fx misled the proposed class of purchasers of the product into believing that the product provided "immediate relief" of cold and flu symptoms. On the evidence, however, the court found that the class definition was overly broad because not all of the Cold- Fx products sold during the relevant time contained the alleged misrepresentations.

Furthermore, not all purchasers of Cold-Fx would have purchased the product for short term relief or because of the alleged representations and not all were purchasers dissatisfied with the product. Moreover, the court found that the representative plaintiff could not fairly and adequately represent the class because she appeared to be no more than a placeholder and the litigation plan for advancing the action was "boilerplate". The plaintiff has appealed the decision.

In Baratto c. Merck Canada inc. (Baratto), the plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action for all persons residing in Quebec who were prescribed Propecia® and/or Proscar® prior to November 18, 2011 for the treatment of baldness. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to adequately advise class members of the health risks associated with the use of the medications, including depression and erectile dysfunction. The Superior Court of Québec refused to authorise the proposed class action, concluding that the plaintiff's allegations were purely hypothetical, including the fact that there were numerous alternative possible causes for his problems. The court further held that an analysis of the evidence of proposed members of the class could only be done on an individual basis, such that a class action would be ill-suited to advance the rights of class members. The plaintiff has appealed the decision.

The 2016 decisions in Batten, Harrison, and Baratto reaffirm that certification of a pharmaceutical class action is not guaranteed and that Canadian court will exercise an important gatekeeper function at the certification stage.

Despite the welcomed decisions in Batten, Harrison, and Baratto, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court certified a proposed class action after allowing the plaintiffs leave to file supplemental evidence on the identifiable class criterion. In Sweetland v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., the plaintiffs alleged that Avandia®, a medication for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, caused cardiovascular events including heart failure, heart attacks and strokes, and that the defendants were liable for negligent design, negligent distribution and marketing, and waiver of tort. At the initial certification hearing in 2015, the court refused to certify the action, but "in the interests of fairness", permitted the plaintiffs to supplement evidence related to the identifiable class criterion, and to file a revised list of common issues. Furthermore, the court refused to dismiss the possibility of compensation based upon waiver of tort at the certification stage, and deferred the matter to the common issues trial. At the second certification hearing, the court held that it was satisfied that the evidence provided by the plaintiff, including two affidavits from individuals who were prescribed Avandia, remedied the deficiencies noted in the first certification decision to establish the existence of two or more class members.

Similarly in Dembrowski v. Bayer Inc., the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, at the initial certification hearing, granted leave to the plaintiff to file a revised litigation plan after finding that the other certification criteria had been met. At the second certification hearing, the court certified the proposed action, concluding that with some amendments, the second litigation plan was sufficient to meet the certification criteria.


A report of the defence successes of 2016 in pharmaceutical cases would also be incomplete without reporting on the 2016 decision of the Superior Court of Québec in Brousseau. As noted above, Brousseau was the first ever decision of a Canadian court ruling on the merits of a pharmaceutical product liability common issues trial.

In Brousseau, the plaintiffs alleged that class members experienced certain psychiatric reactions while taking the drug, Biaxin®, and that Abbott Laboratories failed to sufficiently inform users of the risk of these reactions. The Superior Court of Québec dismissed the action, concluding that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proof with respect to causation. The court held that the inclusion of side effects in the product monograph was not proof that the manufacturer believed there to be a causal link between the drug and the side effect and that the mere possibility of a causal link (e.g., evidence of case reports) was insufficient to prove general causation on a balance of probabilities. The plaintiffs requested an appeal of the decision, which was rejected by the Quebec Court of Appeal. The decision highlights that once a product liability case is certified, plaintiffs must still establish causation with credible and convincing scientific and expert evidence at trial.


The defence can be encouraged by these decisions, which suggest that certification of a pharmaceutical class action is not guaranteed. Where appropriate, the defence may also be encouraged to take cases to a merits hearing — either on a motion for summary judgment or trial. Canadian courts have made clear that plaintiffs must establish issues such as causation based on solid scientific and expert evidence in order to be successful on the merits.

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
12 Sep 2017, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join us as we take an in-depth look at the legislation and the impact on the industry.

14 Sep 2017, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Change, stress and uncertainty are ever]present factors in todayfs legal environment, and specific aspects about the practice of law make it difficult to thrive in the profession long term. Luckily, there are specific research]based strategies that have been shown to help lawyers thrive and lead to more effective ways to manage stress and pressure.

5 Oct 2017, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Blakes is proud to host our New to In-House Series, designed to bring together junior and mid-level in-house counsel for a candid exchange of insights to highlight and address some of the challenges and opportunities facing in-house lawyers in their roles today.

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.