The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging that large‑head metal‑on‑metal hip implants designed and distributed by the defendants were defective and caused injury.
The defendants contested certification primarily on the basis that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.
The court applied the “some basis in fact” standard under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of product defect and class‑wide commonality to support most proposed common issues.
The court found that negligence, duty of care, breach of standard of care, medical monitoring costs, and punitive damages issues could proceed on a class‑wide basis, subject to certain amendments.
The action was certified as a class proceeding with most proposed common issues approved.