Law360 Canada ( November 29, 2024, 3:14 PM EST) -- Appeal by appellants from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which upheld a judgment dismissing appellants’ application for a declaration that s. 11 of the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (ORA) was constitutionally invalid. The appellants were pharmaceutical companies that manufactured, marketed and distributed opioid products throughout Canada. They challenged the validity of s. 11 of the ORA. Section 11 of the ORA authorized the government of British Columbia (Province) to bring an action on behalf of a class consisting of other provincial, territorial and federal governments in Canada to recover their respective health care costs caused by opioid-related wrongs (multi-Crown proceeding). The appellants filed applications seeking a declaration that s. 11 of the ORA was ultra vires the Legislature of the Province. The applications judge dismissed the appellants’ application, and the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. The lower courts concluded that s. 11 created a procedural mechanism that allowed the Province to act on behalf of other Canadian governments in opioid-related proceedings. The appellants argued that section 11 of the ORA did not respect the territorial limits of provincial power by allowing the Province to legislate rights beyond its borders and failed to respect the legislative sovereignty of other Canadian governments. The Province argued that the dominant characteristic of s. 11 was the creation of a procedural mechanism through which it could prosecute an action in the Province on behalf of other consenting governments. The issue on appeal was whether s. 11 of the ORA was ultra vires because it fell outside the Province’s territorial legislative competence, as established by s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (Act)....