The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a proposed class proceeding against the manufacturers of the anti-coagulant drug Pradaxa.
The appellants alleged the respondents breached a duty to warn that there was no antidote for the drug.
The motions judge found that the duty to warn was not a common issue, concluding there was no basis in fact that the failure to warn was a source of harm common across the class.
On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the motions judge did not err in principle or impermissibly weigh competing expert evidence, but correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test using undisputed evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
