Charlton v. Abbott Lab., 2015 BCCA 26

Judge:Bauman, C.J.B.C., Groberman and Willcock, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Case Date:January 22, 2015
Jurisdiction:British Columbia
Citations:2015 BCCA 26;(2015), 366 B.C.A.C. 162 (CA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Charlton v. Abbott Lab. (2015), 366 B.C.A.C. 162 (CA);

    629 W.A.C. 162

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.062

Terry Charlton, Mayra Charlton, Angela Leone, Paula Smith-Turner, Carl Turner and Mark Mandell (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. (appellant/defendant) and Abbott Laboratories and Apotex Inc. (defendants)

(CA041278)

Terry Charlton, Mayra Charlton, Angela Leone, Paula Smith-Turner, Carl Turner and Mark Mandell (respondents/appellants on cross-appeal/plaintiffs) and Apotex Inc. (appellant/defendant) and Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. and Abbott Laboratories (respondents on cross-appeal/defendants)

(CA041291; 2015 BCCA 26)

Indexed As: Charlton et al. v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bauman, C.J.B.C., Groberman and Willcock, JJ.A.

January 22, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff patients brought an action against the defendant pharmaceutical companies, asserting that they had used sibutramine and that the drug had increased the risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke. They pleaded causes of action in negligence and that the drug had been marketed in breach of obligations under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Competition Act. They sought damages pursuant to the doctrine of waiver of tort. The plaintiffs applied for certification as a class action.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1712, allowed the application, certifying the action as a class action. The defendants appealed, asserting that the certification judge erred (1) in principle by certifying the class proceedings, because the plaintiffs did not lead evidence of a methodology for establishing general causation on a class-wide basis; and (2) in certifying the class action because there was no commonality to the claims of members of the defined class. The plaintiffs cross-appealed, asserting that the certification judge erred in law in dismissing the claim against Abbott U.S.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order. It was unnecessary to address the cross-appeal.

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - For damages - See paragraphs 114 to 124.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations - See paragraphs 110 to 125.

Cases Noticed:

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al. (2001), 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 36].

Campbell et al. v. Flexwatt Corp. et al. (1997), 98 B.C.A.C. 22; 161 W.A.C. 22; 44 B.C.L.R.(3d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Rumley et al. v. British Columbia, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184; 275 N.R. 342; 157 B.C.A.C. 1; 256 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 53].

MacMillan v. Abbott Laboratories Laboratoires Abbott Limitée Apotex Inc., 2012 QCCS 1684, refd to. [para. 54].

Fischer et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd. et al. (2013), 452 N.R. 80; 312 O.A.C. 128; 2013 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 63].

Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 545; 450 N.R. 287; 2013 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 63].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477; 450 N.R. 201; 2013 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 63].

Heward et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al. (2008), 239 O.A.C. 273; 91 O.R.(3d) 691 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 77].

Miller v. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 544; 2013 BCSC 544, refd to. [para. 77].

Ernewein et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. et al. (2005), 218 B.C.A.C. 177; 359 W.A.C. 177; 46 B.C.L.R.(4th) 234; 2005 BCCA 540, refd to. [para. 82].

Singer v. Schering-Plough Canada Inc., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 42; 2010 ONSC 42, refd to. [para. 85].

Chadha v. Bayer Inc. et al. (2003), 168 O.A.C. 143; 63 O.R.(3d) 22 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2003] 2 S.C.R. vi; 320 N.R. 399, refd to. [para. 87].

Andriuk et al. v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. (2013), 578 A.R. 40; 2013 ABQB 422, affd. (2014), 575 A.R. 208; 612 W.A.C. 208; 2014 ABCA 177, refd to. [para. 88].

Stanway v. Wyeth Canada Inc. et al. (2012), 323 B.C.A.C. 84; 550 W.A.C. 84; 2012 BCCA 260, refd to. [para. 93].

Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp. et al. (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 51; 236 W.A.C. 51; 2000 BCCA 605, refd to. [para. 95].

T.L. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) (2006), 395 A.R. 327; 2006 ABQB 104, refd to. [para. 97].

Laferrière v. Lawson, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 541; 123 N.R. 325; 38 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 99].

Wakelam v. Johnson & Johnson et al. (2014), 350 B.C.A.C. 70; 598 W.A.C. 70; 2014 BCCA 36, refd to. [para. 109].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG et al. (2009), 277 B.C.A.C. 271; 469 W.A.C. 271; 312 D.L.R.(4th) 419; 2009 BCCA 503, refd to. [para. 119].

Steele et al. v. Toyota Canada Inc. et al. (2011), 306 B.C.A.C. 132; 516 W.A.C. 132; 329 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 2011 BCCA 98, refd to. [para. 119].

Serhan et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al. (2006), 213 O.A.C. 298; 85 O.R.(3d) 665; 269 D.L.R.(4th) 279 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 120].

Koubi v. Mazda Canada Inc. et al. (2012), 325 B.C.A.C. 172; 553 W.A.C. 172; 2012 BCCA 310, refd to. [para. 120].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hayes, Patrick, Exploring the Viability of Class Actions Arising from Environmental Toxic Torts: Overcoming Barriers to Certification, 19 J. Env. L. & Prac. 190, p. 195 [para. 95].

Counsel:

N. Finkelstein, C. Zayid and B. Kain, for the appellant, Abbott Laboratories, Ltd.;

K. Kay and S. Hosseini, for the appellant, Apotex Inc.;

E.F.A. Merchant, Q.C., C. Churko and A. Sadaghianloo, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on September 29 and 30, 2014, by Bauman, C.J.B.C., Groberman and Willcock, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal were delivered by Willcock, J.A., on January 22, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP