Charlton et al. v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. et al., 2015 BCCA 26
| Judge | Bauman, C.J.B.C., Groberman and Willcock, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | January 22, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2015 BCCA 26;(2015), 366 B.C.A.C. 162 (CA) |
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
Request your trial
-
An Overview of Class Actions and Covid-19 in Ontario’s Long-term Care Facilities
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......
-
Introduction
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......
-
United We Stand, Divided We Fall: Class Actions and Corporate Hegemony
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......
-
The Limits of Case Management: A Review and Principled Approach to the Court’s General Management Powers
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......
-
0790482 B.C. Ltd. v. KBK No. 11 Ventures Ltd.,
...149 at para. 39 [Credit Union]; Watson v. Bank of America Corporation, 2015 BCCA 362 at para. 10; Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd., 2015 BCCA 26 at para. 85; AIC Limited v. Fischer, 2013 SCC 69 at paras. 21–24; Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 247 D.L.R. (4th) 667 at pa......
-
WN Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Krishnan,
...2020 ONSC 1646 at para. 120; Bhangu v. Honda Canada Inc., 2021 BCSC 794 at paras. 97–99; and Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd., 2015 BCCA 26, at para. 39 He dealt, first, with an argument advanced by the appellant Jamieson that there was no evidence in support of the claim against......
-
Cantlie v. Canadian Heating Products Inc., 2017 BCSC 286
...issues of law that arise from common but not necessarily identical facts; [296] Willcock J.A. in Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd., 2015 BCCA 26 at para. 85, recently summarized the principles governing the assessment of common issues by reference to the decision of Singer at para. 140: ......
-
British Columbia v. Apotex Inc.,
...decisions as to weight can be made: Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1712 at para. 65, rev’d on other grounds in 2015 BCCA 26. In the context of the failure to warn allegations, the plaintiff’s pleadings are sufficient to give the defendants notice of the case ......
-
Looking Forward: Canadian Class Actions in 2016
...that the limitation period is suspended on the date a notice of motion for leave to commence the action is filed with the court. 5. 2015 BCCA 26, 381 DLR (4th) 575. 6. 2015 ABQB 139, 65 CPC (7th) 382. 7. 2015 ONSC 2470, 19 CCLT (4th) 47. 8. 2015 ONSC 7950, 2015 CarswellOnt 19420. 9. 2014 BC......
-
B.C. Class Action Battlegrounds In 2015
...BCCA 506); and evidence of a methodology to address risk of harm to all class members was adduced (Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd., 2015 BCCA 26). Finally, class action trials are proceeding in B.C., primarily in the form of summary trials. The literature reports that, as of 2014, ther......
-
B.C. Court Confirms Plaintiffs Must Provide Workable Causation Methodology To Certify Product Liability Class Proceedings
...Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., 2015 BCCA 26 (Charlton), the British Columbia Court of Appeal clarified the evidentiary threshold plaintiffs must satisfy at the certification stage in the context of product liability class actions. In particular, the Court confirmed that plaintiffs a......
-
What To Expect In Class Action Law In 2019
...Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, 2013 SCC 59. 4 Microsoft, para. 118. 5 See for example Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories, 2015 BCCA 26 and O'Brien v. Bard Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 6 See for example Andriuk v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., 2014 ABCA 177. 7 On appeal from Ewert v. ......
-
The Limits of Case Management: A Review and Principled Approach to the Court’s General Management Powers
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......
-
Introduction
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......
-
United We Stand, Divided We Fall: Class Actions and Corporate Hegemony
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......
-
Determining a Fair Price for Carriage?: Applying a 'fee-driven' Factor and Reverse Auctions to Adjudicating Carriage Motions in Ontario
...recent pronouncement in Charlton, based on the lack of a mechanism of harm in Charlton and because “the type of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2015 BCCA 26 at paras 84 and 92 [Charlton]. Ibid at para 90 [emphasis added]. Ibid at paras 99 and 125. Miller BCCA, above note 17. Miller v Merck Frosst C......