6 total
The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of class certification for claims regarding contaminated valsartan, holding that increased risk of cancer and transient psychological distress are not compensable injuries in tort.
The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against pharmaceutical companies for negligently manufacturing valsartan, alleging contamination with NDMA and NDEA, which are potential carcinogens.
The claim was for damages related to an increased risk of cancer, costs of medical services and monitoring, refunds for drugs, and psychological damages.
The motion judge dismissed the certification, finding no viable cause of action based on concrete injury.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that claims for genotoxic injury (molecular changes without perceptible effect), psychological harm (not meeting the 'serious and prolonged' or 'ordinary fortitude' thresholds), and pure economic loss (as the product was discarded and not imminently dangerous) were not compensable in tort.
The court also upheld the dismissal of claims for battery, consumer protection breaches, Competition Act breaches, and unjust enrichment, concluding that the pleadings did not disclose viable causes of action or meet commonality criteria for certification.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 21, 2022.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $7,500.
Plaintiffs awarded $496,000 in partial indemnity costs; claim for preparing costs submissions disallowed.
This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the Plaintiffs' successful certification motion in a class action.
The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiffs' entitlement to costs on a partial indemnity scale, disallowed a claim for nearly $20,000 in docketed time spent on preparing the costs submissions themselves, deeming it novel and not to be encouraged.
The court rejected the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs' fees were too high, noting that both sides invested similar hours and the difference in dollar amounts reflected firm structure rather than overwork.
The Plaintiffs were awarded all-inclusive costs of $496,000.
Class action regarding defective Allergan breast implants and failure to warn certified against all defendants.
The plaintiffs sought certification of a national class action against the defendants regarding alleged defects and failures to warn associated with Allergan breast implants, specifically concerning risks of BIA-ALCL, premature rupture, and ASIA/BII.
The court found that the plaintiffs met all the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including demonstrating a plausible methodology for their claims through expert evidence, despite significant scientific debate.
The action was certified against all defendants, expanding a previous partial certification order.
Class action for contaminated valsartan dismissed as law does not compensate for mere increased risk of harm.
The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the defendant pharmaceutical companies for manufacturing and distributing valsartan contaminated with NDMA and NDEA, which are probable human carcinogens.
The plaintiffs claimed damages for psychological harm and pure economic losses (medical bills, medical monitoring, refunds, and wasted pills) arising from the increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer, but explicitly did not claim damages for actually developing cancer.
The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the law does not recognize a cause of action for the mere creation of risk or for pure economic loss from shoddy but not imminently dangerous goods, and therefore the claims failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings and partially certify a national class action regarding textured breast implants on consent.
The Plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim and for partial certification of a proposed national class action concerning BIOCELL textured breast implants.
The amendments sought to add representative plaintiffs from parallel actions and reorganize the claim.
One defendant, Allergan Inc., consented to both the pleading amendments and the partial certification of a defined class and six common issues, including product defect, duty to warn, and consumer protection breaches.
The court granted the amendments and partial certification against Allergan Inc., finding that the proposed class and common issues met the criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
The balance of the certification motion against the other defendants was adjourned.