B.C. commenced the action in 2018 on behalf of itself and other federal, provincial and territorial governments to recover health-care, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to prescription opioids incurred since 1996.
In a Jan. 22 decision in British Columbia v. Apotex Inc., 2025 BCSC 92, Justice Michael Brundrett held that a class proceeding offered a clearly preferable method of resolving the claims when compared with other realistically available means of resolution.
The defendants in the action include Apotex Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma and Shoppers Drug Mart among other pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors.
“This decision reaffirms our commitment to holding pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in the opioid crisis, which was declared as a public health emergency in 2016 and has devastated many lives and families,” B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma said in a release.
According to Health Canada, there were a total of 49,105 apparent opioid toxicity deaths in Canada between January 2016 and June 2024.
B.C. enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (ORA) in 2018 to allow the province to recover health-care costs caused or contributed to by “opioid-related wrongs” allegedly committed by manufacturers and distributors of opioid drugs.
Justice Brundrett noted that the case was unprecedented in many ways.
“The size and complexity of the case, the number of defendants, the targeting of the alleged over-supply of prescription opioids which are highly regulated, and the use of health care costs recovery statutes all make this case unique,” he wrote.
The judge observed that the ORA provided B.C. and the federal government the option to pursue the recovery of health-care costs on an aggregate basis and the benefit of certain evidentiary presumptions, noting that certain provisions of the Act obviated matters of proof relating to causation.
Under the ORA, statistical information and information derived from epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies is admissible as evidence for the purposes of establishing causation and quantifying the cost of health-care benefits respecting an opioid-related wrong in an action brought under the Act.
The court certified common issues including whether any of the manufacturer defenddants made misrepresentations about the opioid products they produced and whether they were unjustly enriched as a result.
Justice Brundrett also certified common issues related to the defendant’s knowledge of the risks and benefits of opioid use and of the behaviour of users who become addicted to or dependent on an opioid product.
The judge found that there were substantial benefits to addressing all of the claims of the class members in one aggregate national class action, even though the defendants had raised numerous potentially complex individual issues that detracted from the requirements for certification.
“The questions of fact and law common to the proposed Class Members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and the class proceeding will provide significant efficiency to addressing the various claims,” the judge wrote.
He added that the resolution of the common issues would significantly advance the claims of the class members in a meaningful way, certifying the lawsuit as a class proceeding.
“[T]he B.C. Supreme Court’s decision to certify the litigation marks a significant milestone in our fight against opioid manufacturers and distributors,” Sharma said.
In a post on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), federal Mental Health and Addictions Minister Ya'ara Saks said that Canada remained “intent on becoming a class member in this suit”.
“Our work to end the predatory practices of the pharmaceutical industry continues,” she added.
If you have any information, story ideas, or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.