B.C.’s Attorney General Niki Sharma said the Supreme Court of Canada’s victory clears the way for governments across the country to go after opioid manufacturers and distributors for damages arising from the opioid crisis.
Canada’s Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the constitutionality of a law allowing British Columbia to bring class actions against opioid providers on behalf of other provinces, territories and the federal government.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s 6-1 decision is another step toward possible cross-border action by governments that pay for the treatment of patients who take addictive drugs.
Sharma told a news conference that the case is a “significant victory” against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Peers have previously said the case is likely to involve “huge financial claims” and could serve as a “template” for similar claims.
Federal Mental Health and Addictions Minister Yaara Sachs also hailed the ruling as an opportunity to “hold pharmaceutical companies to account”.
“Canada intends to join this litigation if certified,” Sachs said in a social media post. “We took action to crack down on predatory practices in the pharmaceutical industry.”
Section 11 of B.C.’s Opioid Harm and Health Care Cost Recovery Act allows the province to sue opioid manufacturers and distributors on behalf of multiple governments; It is also allowed to go out.
Some companies argued that Section 11 exceeded state authority and was unconstitutional.
A BC court declared the law valid, prompting the companies to take the case to the Supreme Court.
A majority of the Supreme Court ruled that BC law respects the legislative sovereignty of other Canadian governments.
The report notes that nearly every province and territory in Canada and the federal government intend to join the proposed class action, and the court will take due care before finding the collaboration unconstitutional. He added that he should pay the amount.
Article 11 is an example of the important role that national class actions play, providing a mechanism to help multiple governments work toward the same goals, the court said.
In today’s increasingly complex society, governments are taking on greater regulatory roles in multiple areas, increasing the need for cross-border intergovernmental and interjudicial cooperation, says Andromache. – Justice Karakatsanis wrote on behalf of the majority.
“The opioid epidemic gripping our nation is a clear example of a crisis that attracts this cooperation and compassion. Nationwide in scope, this will help us achieve efficiency, consistency, and access to justice for all.” “This highlights the role that nationwide class action lawsuits can play in helping people suffer harm regardless of geographic boundaries.” ”
Sharma said at a news conference that the state has “much better tools” to go after companies through a national class action lawsuit, and although he hopes to get a trial soon, he believes the defendants and the government should be united. He said there was an “open request” for him to go to trial. Solve the incident.
Opioid maker Purdue Pharma settled the case for $150 million in June 2022, and Sharma said, “The next step is to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible.”
He said that while no government has opted out of litigation as allowed by law, working with other governments highlights “the partnership that has been created between the governments of this country.” Ta.
“This is really an example of how cooperative federalism can come together through the court process,” she said.
Sharma said the lawsuit has not yet been certified as a class action in B.C.’s Supreme Court and is awaiting a high court ruling, making it impossible to estimate potential damages if successful.
“No amount of money we raise from these drug companies can undo the damage and impact of the opioid crisis that so many families in B.C. and across the country are facing,” she said.
Sharma said the state is reviewing the court’s decision to “understand exactly how” the national class action model “could be used in other situations.”
In a statement ahead of Fiday, he said the state could “advance on behalf of federal, state and territory governments to recover the costs of treating opioid-related diseases caused by industry misconduct.” .
B.C. Premier David Eby said in a social media post Friday that the opioid crisis has claimed thousands of lives and devastated families across the province and across the country.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision allows us to hold opioid manufacturers accountable on behalf of all Canadians who perpetuate this crisis. We will continue this fight.”
The case dates back to 2018, when British Columbia accused manufacturers, distributors and distributors of opioid products of misrepresenting their products as less addictive than other painkillers, contributing to the national epidemic. A lawsuit was filed in state court alleging that
Mr. Karakatsanis said B.C. would seek to file a class action lawsuit with itself as lead plaintiff and a class action lawsuit comprising all federal, provincial and territorial governments and agencies that have paid medical, drug and treatment costs related to opioids. Karakatsanis pointed out that he had asked for certification of the lawsuit.
A few months later, BC enacted the Opioid Harm and Medical Cost Recovery Act, creating a direct statutory cause of action.
Karakatsanis said this would include allowing statistical information as admissible evidence to prove causation, freeing the government from proving the cause of specific individuals’ opioid-related injuries, and requiring courts to consider whether those individuals are It noted that it includes new rules of evidence and other procedural mechanisms that require a presumption of causing injury. Without defendants’ actions, he would not have used opioids.
Section 11 of the Act authorizes BC to sue on behalf of a class of other Canadian provinces, territories, the federal government and their health care providers in existing proceedings. out of class unless these governments choose, as BC has already done.
The state amended the civil notice of claim to incorporate this provision into the petition.
A group of defendants, including Sanis Health, Shoppers Drug Mart, Sandoz Canada and pharmaceutical distributor McKesson Canada, appealed to the High Court, arguing that Section 11 is “unprecedented in Canadian history.” .
In their appeal filing, the companies said B.C.’s lawsuit “will likely result in future cases initiated by a single province on behalf of all other Canadian governments, possibly involving large financial claims against private parties, such as this one.” “It will establish a template for litigation.”
Lawyers for Sanis, Shoppers and Sandoz Canada did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the court’s decision.
McKesson Canada said in an emailed statement that the company “respects the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and will not comment further.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 29, 2024.
