COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Lang, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Shirley Sollen, Lise Latulippe, Sandi Englund, Greg Williams, Murray Chuckrowski, Cheryl Shaw, Joyce Kamants, Pearl Bequette, May Viccars, Carol Walker, Darlene Kemp, Pfizer John Doe I, Pfizer John Doe II, Pfizer John Doe III, Pfizer John Doe IV, Pfizer John Doe V, Pfizer Jane Doe I, Pfizer Jane Doe II, Pfizer Jane Doe III, Pfizer Jane Doe IV, Pfizer Jane Doe V, Pfizer John Doe VI, Pfizer John Doe VII, Pfizer John Doe VIII, Pfizer John Doe IX, Pfizer John Doe X, Pfizer John Doe XI, Pfizer Jane Doe VI, Pfizer Jane Doe VIII, Pfizer Jane Doe IX, Pfizer Pharmacist John Doe I, Pfizer Dr. John Doe I, Pfizer Dr. Jane Doe I, Mobicox John Doe I, Mobicox John Doe II, Mobicox John Doe III, Mobicox John Doe IV, Mobicox John Doe V, Mobicox Jane Doe I, Mobicox Jane Doe II, Mobicox Jane Doe III, Mobicox Jane Doe IV, Mobicox Jane Doe V, Mobicox John Doe VI, Mobicox John Doe VII, Mobicox John Doe VIII, Mobicox John Doe IX, Mobicox John Doe X, Mobicox John Doe XI, Mobicox Jane Doe VI, Mobicox Jane Doe VII, Mobicox Jane Doe VIII, Mobicox Jane Doe IX, Mobicox Pharmacist John Doe I, Mobicox Dr. John Doe I, Mobicox Dr. Jane Doe I, and other John Does and Jane Does to be added
Plaintiffs (Respondents)
and
Pfizer Canada Inc., Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia Canada Inc., Pharmacia Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by The Minister of Health Canada and the Attorney General of Canada
Defendants (Appellant)
J. Scott Maidment and Lindsay Lorimer, for the appellant
John Legge and Casey R. Churko, for the respondent, Shirley Sollen
Emily Larose, for the respondent, Pfizer Canada Inc.
Heard and released orally: November 26, 2008
On appeal from the order of Justice Maurice Cullity of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 21, 2008 and reported at 2008 8618 (ON SC), 290 D.L.R. (4th) 603.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant appeals the decision of the motion judge that discontinued the respondents’ national class action and dismissed the appellant’s claim for an anti-suit injunction.
2The appellant concedes that if he loses the appeal from the discontinuance decision, then his appeal of the non-suit decision cannot succeed. We will begin with the appeal of the discontinuance decision.
3The motion judge approved the discontinuance under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 29. The requirement for approval is intended for the protection of the interests of the absent class members. The motion judge determined that those interests would not be prejudiced by the discontinuance. We are not persuaded of any error in the motion judge’s reasons for the approval of the discontinuance.
4This disposes of the motion for the anti-suit injunction, which presumed the continuance of the action in Ontario.
5While we recognize that there are important issues surrounding national class proceedings commenced in multiple jurisdictions, the facts of this case do not provide the appropriate foundation for a consideration of those issues.
6Costs are awarded to the respondents in the agreed-upon amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services tax.
"S.E. Lang J.A."
"R.G. Juriansz J.A."
"G. Epstein J.A."
