British Columbia Proposes Legislation To Recoup Vaping-related Health Care Costs

On October 8, 2025, the Government of British Columbia introduced Bill 24, the Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (the VRA). This proposed statute, modelled on similar legislation for tobacco products and opioids, aims to "recoup some of the health care expenses it is required to incur as a result of the health ills caused by vaping products"¹. In this bulletin, we discuss the proposed features of the legislation and what it could mean for those who wholesale and manufacture these products.

What you need to know

• BC proposes new vaping health care cost recovery legislation. The proposed legislation applies to vaping products (but excludes cannabis or prescribed substances). This legislation is modelled on previously enacted BC health care cost recovery statutes that target tobacco and opioid products.
• New cause of action. The cause of action would allow the province to sue vaping manufacturers, wholesalers and consultants (as well as related entities, directors and officers) for recovery of health care costs associated with injuries from the use of or exposure to vaping products.
• Liability may be established in the aggregate, through presumptions, and applied retroactively. The proposed scheme would allow for liability to be established in the aggregate, without needing to prove that the products caused harm on an individual basis. The scheme imposes a form of strict liability such that, if a breach of a duty owed to individuals for vaping-related wrongs is established, the province would be entitled to rely on certain presumptions in relation to general causation and damages. The proposed statute would also reset applicable limitation periods and allow health care costs recovery for past wrongs.

Background

Over the past 25 years, British Columbia has passed two statutes creating new causes of action against product manufacturers in respect of combustible tobacco² and opioids³. These statutes have subsequently been replicated in many provinces across the country. Both statutes have been relied upon by the BC provincial government to launch class proceedings against companies involved in the sale and marketing of tobacco and opioid products, claiming recovery for the health care costs associated with the use of products. The class action launched under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act resulted in a multi-province $32.5 billion settlement, with BC set to receive $3.6 billion over the next 18 years⁴. Legal actions to recover health care costs under the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act are also ongoing, with two class actions having been certified in BC to date under the statute⁵. The Supreme Court also ruled, in that context, that BC was permitted to act as representative plaintiff for a class of federal and provincial governments seeking recovery against opioid manufacturers (which we discus in our previous bulletin on this development).

The BC government has been contemplating expanding the scope of potential health care cost recovery in the province for some time. Prior to the enactment of the new Bill 24, the BC government had introduced Bill 12 in early 2024, which would have created a statutory cause of action for the government to recover costs arising from broadly defined "health-related wrongs" on behalf of a class that could include other provincial governments and/or the federal government. However, Bill 12 ultimately expired when a provincial election was called in October 2024.

British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce this type of legislation specifically targeted at vaping product manufacturers and wholesalers. The VRA uses the same model as the tobacco and opioid damages and health care recovery acts by creating a cause of action for the provincial government to recover funds for health care costs associated with the use of vaping products. Notably, in a press release discussing the VRA, the province of British Columbia stated that it is exploring creating similar legislation regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)⁶.

Proposed vaping health care costs recovery legislation

The first part of the VRA, like the tobacco and opioid statutes it is modelled on, allows the province to recover health care costs "caused or contributed to by a vaping-related wrong", which include torts that contribute to vaping-related harms, disease, illness or injury, or breaches in duties owed to British Columbians who may have been exposed to or used vaping products. The VRA, if enacted, will apply to:

• Vaping products: specified substances that contain nicotine and are used in a specified device; and
• Vaping devices: devices that render the specified substance into an aerosol for the purpose of being inhaled through the mouth.

Substances that contain cannabis or prescribed substances—including those that otherwise contain nicotine—are excluded.

The VRA proposes a legislative regime for demonstrating liability with several features that favour the province. Specifically, under the VRA, liability:

• Would apply to a range of industry participants. The legislation is directed to manufacturers, wholesalers and their consultants, which are defined to include:
  • manufacturers of vaping products;
  • entities who derive at least 10% of their revenues from the manufacture or promotion of vaping products;
  • entities and trade associations who promote vaping products;
  • distributors of vaping products for resale;
  • affiliates of manufacturers and wholesalers, as well as trusts and joint ventures;
  • directors and officers who directed, authorized, assented to or participated in vaping-related wrongs (subject to due diligence defences); and
  • those who provide advisory services in relation to the sale, marketing or distribution of vaping products.
• May lead to aggregate recovery. In addition to recovery of the cost of health care benefits for particular individual recipients, the VRA permits recovery on an aggregate basis for a population of benefit recipients. Aggregate recovery does not require the identification of individual recipients, nor proof of either specific causation or the cost of health care benefits for any individual. The VRA sets out commensurate limitations on discovery, namely:
  • individual benefit recipient's health care records and documents are not compellable unless a rule requires their production for the purpose of expert evidence;
  • the court may order production of a statistically meaningful sample of health care records; and
  • a person is not compellable to answer questions with respect to the health of, or the provision of health care benefits for, particular benefit recipients.
• May allow recovery for risk-based claims. Vaping related disease, injury or illness includes "risks" thereof.
• Statistics and presumptions may be used to establish liability, causation and damages. Like the tobacco and opioid statutes, the VRA allows the province to use statistical evidence to prove causation but would also allow statistical evidence to be used to prove liability and to quantify damages. The VRA also sets out certain presumptions in favour of the province related to causation and damages if it can prove breach of a duty or obligation owed to people who use or were exposed to vaping products. These include a presumption that individuals' use or exposure to a vaping product would not have occurred but for the breach, and that the use or exposure caused or contributed to a disease, injury or illness that can be caused by the vaping product.
• Might not be negated by a settlement. The VRA states that a settlement between a manufacturer, wholesaler or consultant and the government or a benefit recipient is not a defence to claims under the legislation.
• May be pursued via multi-Crown actions. The VRA would allow the BC government to bring a class action on behalf of other provincial governments and/or the federal government.
• Could be established retroactively. The legislation resets the running of the limitation clock to 15 years from either its coming into force or the day a claim is discovered, and allows previous actions commenced by the government for health care costs recovery to be revived if the reason for dismissal was an expired limitation period.

Implications

British Columbia's proposed legislation represents the first legislative action by a provincial government in Canada to create a cause of action allowing recovery of health care costs in respect of vaping products. If passed, the VRA may be replicated in other provinces as was the case for tobacco and opioid damages and health care cost recovery legislation. Torys will continue to report and monitor developments in BC and across the country. In the meantime:

• The proposed legislation has not yet been approved or enacted. Introduction of Bill 24 in the BC Legislature marks only the first stage to it becoming law—there is likely to be continued debate about the merits and content of the proposed legislation. If enacted, the VRA may ultimately take a different form than that currently proposed in Bill 24.
• Opioids litigation may provide guidance. Ongoing litigation under BC's health care recovery legislation for opioid products may provide guidance about how courts will interpret and apply health care recovery legislation in other contexts. Interested parties in may consider monitoring these government class actions as they progress.
• Other industries may be subjected to similar legislative initiatives in future. The province signaled it is exploring similar legislation to address PFAS, for example.

Footnotes

1. Bill 24, The Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 1st Sess, 43^rd Parl, 2025, Explanatory Note (first reading October 8, 2025) (the VRA).

2. Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 30.

3. Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2018, c. 35.

4. "Minister's statement on first tobacco litigation payment", Government of British Columbia, (August 29, 2025).

5. British Columbia v McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, 2025 BCSC 1094; British Columbia v Apotex Inc., 2025 BCSC 92.

6. "New law will hold vape manufacturers accountable for public health costs", Government of British Columbia, (October 8, 2025).

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.