Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp.,

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Esson, Rowles, Finch, Ryan and Huddart, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 BCCA 605
• Citation: (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 51 (CA),2000 BCCA 605,193 DLR (4th) 67,[2000] 11 WWR 201,82 BCLR (3d) 1,144 BCAC 51,2 CCLT (3d) 157,[2000] BCJ No 2237 (QL),47 CPC (4th) 191,[2000] B.C.J. No 2237 (QL),144 B.C.A.C. 51,(2000), 144 BCAC 51 (CA),193 D.L.R. (4th) 67
• Date: 08 November 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp. (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 51 (CA);

    236 W.A.C. 51

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.017

Helen Harrington, as representative plaintiff (plaintiff/respondent/appellant/appellant by cross-appeal) v. Dow Corning Corporation, Dow Corning Canada Inc., The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Corning-Wright Corporation, McGhan Medical Corporation, McGhan Nusil Corporation, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), Inamed Corporation, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Mentor Corporation (defendants/respondents/respondents by cross-appeal) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Medical Engineering Corporation, The Cooper Companies Inc., Dow Corning Corporation, Dow Corning Canada Inc., The Dow Chemical Company, McGhan Medical Corporation, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) and Baxter Healthcare Corporation (defendants/appellants/respondents/respondents by cross-appeal) and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenor)

(CA21810; CA21857; CA21843; CA21868; CA21855; CA21929; CA22983; 2000 BCCA 605)

Indexed As: Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Esson, Rowles, Finch, Ryan and Huddart, JJ.A.

November 8, 2000.

Summary:

The plaintiff represented a class of women who alleged injury and damages resulting from the use of breast implants. One com­mon question was certified for trial in the class action, namely, "are silicone gel breast implants reasonably fit for their intended purpose?". Eighteen other questions were rejected. Five defendants were excluded from the trial of the common question. A sixth defendant was also excluded after further argument. See 22 B.C.L.R.(3d) 97. Various defendants appealed. None of the six "excluded" defendants appealed. The plaintiff cross-appealed against all defend­ants. The notice of cross-appeal was thus defective. The limitation period had by then expired. The plaintiff applied to extend the time to file an appeal. Four of the "excluded" defendants opposed the motion. Another "excluded" defendant no longer existed and was struck from the style of cause. No appeal was sought as against the sixth "excluded" defendant, it now being insolvent.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Newbury, J.A., in a decision reported in 119 B.C.A.C. 85; 194 W.A.C. 85, dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal as against the six "excluded" defend­ants. The notice of cross-appeal remained as against the re­maining defendants.

The above defendants applied to have their appeal removed from the inactive list pursu­ant to s. 25(2) of the Court of Appeal Act, and to extend the time for filing their re­spective factums.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., in a decision reported in 130 B.­C.A.C. 197; 211 W.A.C. 197, allowed the application.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the following decision, dismissed the appeal from the order certifying this action as a class proceeding. Esson and Finch, JJ.A., dissented.

Editor's Note: See also related cases at [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 229; [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 451; 4 B.C.T.C. 154 and 4 B.C.T.C. 156.

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class or representative actions - General principles - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that a certification order was inter­locutory and concerned case management - See paragraph 19 - A class proceeding must be the preferable pro­cedure having regard to "all relevant mat­ters" including the statutory criteria set out in s. 4(2) of the Class Proceeding Act - See paragraph 53.

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class or representative actions - General principles - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that to be a "com­mon issue" an issue of fact or law need not be one that was determinative of lia­bility, but one which would "move the litigation forward" - See paragraph 20 - "Common" meant that the resolution of the point in question must be applicable to all who were bound by it - To be applicable to all parties, the answer to the question must, at least, be capable of extrapolation to each member of the class or subclass on whose behalf the trial of the common issue was certified for trial by a class proceeding - The answer must be capable of extrapo­lation to all defendants who would be bound by it - See paragraph 24.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Certification - Con­siderations (incl. when class action appro­priate) - Women who alleged injury and damages resulting from the use of silicone breast implants sued the manufacturers of the implants and a supplier of silicone - The action was certified as a class pro­ceeding with one common question: "are silicone gel breast implants reasonably fit for their intended purpose?" - Two sub­classes of women were described (resident and non-resident), each comprised of women who were implanted in British Columbia - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the requirements of a "common issue" were met, a class pro­ceeding was the preferable procedure and the court had jurisdiction over the two subclasses of women - See paragraphs 12 to 100 .

Cases Noticed:

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. [paras. 9, 105].

Bendall v. McGhan Medical Corp. (1993), 14 O.R.(3d) 734 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 13, 109].

Dante v. Dow Corning (1992), 143 F.R.D. 136 (S.D. Ohio), refd to. [paras. 13, 109].

Rosedale Motors Inc. v. Petro-Canada Inc. (1998), 87 O.T.C. 180; 42 O.R.(3d) 776 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

L.R. v. British Columbia (1999), 180 D.L.R.(4th) 639 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

In re Breast Implant Litigation (1998), 11 F. Supp.2d 1217 (D. Colo.), refd to. [para. 29].

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993), 509 U.S. 579; 125 L.Ed.2d 469; 113 S.Ct. 2786, refd to. [para. 29].

Hollis v. Birch - see Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al.

Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634; 190 N.R. 241; 67 B.C.A.C. 1; 111 W.A.C. 1; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 35].

Castano v. American Tobacco Co. (1996), 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir.), refd to. [paras. 38, 146].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 47].

Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., [1936] A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 47].

Phillips v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada (1970), 12 D.L.R.(3d) 28 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Phillips v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada, [1971] 2 O.R. 637 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Ltd., [1972] 2 S.C.R. 569, refd to. [para. 47].

Nicholson et al. v. Deere (John) Ltd. (1986), 34 D.L.R.(4th) 542 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1989), 57 D.L.R.(4th) 639 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Palmer et al. v. Nova Scotia Forest Industries (1983), 60 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 128 A.P.R. 271; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 397 (T.D.), consd. [para. 50].

Privest Properties Ltd. et al. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1995), 11 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.), affd. (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 290; 148 W.A.C. 290; 31 B.C.L.R.(3d) 114 (C.A.), consd. [para. 50].

Nantais v. Telectronics Proprietary (Canada) Ltd. (1995), 25 O.R.(3d) 331 (Gen. Div.), leave to appeal denied (1995), 40 C.P.C.(3d) 263 (Div. Ct.), revd. (1996), 7 C.P.C.(4th) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Chace et al. v. Crane Canada Inc. (1997), 101 B.C.A.C. 32; 164 W.A.C. 32; 44 B.C.L.R.(3d) 264 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 67, 120].

Moran et al. v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 239, refd to. [para. 71].

Carom et al. v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd. et al. (1999), 99 O.T.C. 335; 43 O.R.(3d) 441 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 75].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 96, refd to. [para. 79].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241; [1995] 1 W.W.R. 609, refd to. [para. 80].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 256; 52 B.C.L.R.(2d) 160, refd to. [para. 81].

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Quebéc Ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 87].

Werner v. Saab-Scandia AB, [1980] C.S. 798 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

Seguin-Chand v. McAllister, [1992] B.C.J. No. 237 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (1985), 472 U.S. 797, refd to. [para. 93].

Creasy v. Sweeny, [1942] 2 D.L.R. 552, refd to. [para. 116].

Taylor v. Vancouver General Hospital, [1945] 3 W.W.R. 510, refd to. [para. 116].

Roe, McNeil & Co. v. McNeill, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Waruk et al. v. Waruk et al. (1996), 83 B.C.A.C. 287; 136 W.A.C. 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Tiemstra v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 144; 154 W.A.C. 144; 38 B.C.L.R.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

Arch v. American Tobacco Co. (1997), 175 F.R.D. 469; 65 USWL 2832 (E.D. Pa.), refd to. [para. 146].

Georgine v. Amchem Products Inc. (1996), 83 F.3d 610; 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 21138; 34 Fed R. Serv.3d 407 (3rd Cir. Pa.), refd to. [para. 146].

Kinley v. Krahn (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 139; 96 W.A.C. 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceeding Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, sect. 1 [para. 119]; sect. 4, sect. 7, sect. 11, sect. 12 [para. 10]; sect. 16(2) [para. 72]; sect. 25 [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Law Reform Institute, Class Actions, Consultation Memorandum No. 9 (March 2000), p. 31 [para. 74].

Boodman, The Malaise of Mass Torts (1994), 20 Queen's L.J. 213, p. 242 [para. 40].

Federal Breast Implant Multi-District Litigation, National Science Panel Report, Silicone Breast Implants in Relation to Connective Tissue Diseases and Immunologic Dysfunction (Dec. 15, 1998), generally [para. 32].

United Kingdom, Report of the Independent Review Group, Silicone Gel Breast Implants (July 1998), generally [para. 32].

United States, Institute of Medicine, Safety of Silicone Breast Implants (1999), generally [para. 32]; preface [para. 36]; p. 52 [para. 36].

Counsel:

M.R. Steven, D.A. Klein, J. Pearce and K. Whitley, for the plaintiff, Helen Harrington;

W.S. Berardino, Q.C., and Allan P. Seckel, for Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Medical Engineering Corp. and Cooper Companies Inc.;

Oleh W. Ilnyckyj and M. Worfolk, for Baxter Healthcare Corp.;

J. Kenneth McEwan and L. Herbst, for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M);

Bruce E. McLeod, for McGhan Medical Corporation;

H.M. Groberman, Q.C., for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 27 and 28, 2000, before Esson, Rowles, Finch, Ryan and Huddart, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On November 8, 2000, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following judgments were filed:

Huddart, J.A. (Rowles and Ryan, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 101;

Finch, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 102 to 155;

Esson, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 156 to 165.