Key Product Liability Cases: Q1 2024 Update
The Product Liability and Mass Torts Group at McCarthy Tétrault LLP is pleased to bring you our analysis of recent decisions for businesses manufacturing or selling products in Canada:
- Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies Standards for Compensable
Psychological Injury in Product Liability Claims:
Palmer v. Teva
- Ontario's Divisional Court Upholds Denial of Certification
in a Pharmaceutical Class Action: Price v.
Lundbeck
- General Motors Settles Canadian Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Claims for $12M+: Oberski v. General Motors
LLC
- Court of Appeal for Ontario Clarifies Application of Ontario's Amended Class Proceedings Act: Martin v. Wright Medical Technology Canada Ltd.
Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies standards for compensable psychological injury in product liability claims: Palmer v. Teva
On March 27, 2024, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its much-awaited decision in Palmer v. Teva.1 The decision sends a clear signal that claims based on weak science and remote or tenuous risks of future injury are unlikely to be certified. It is consistent with the clear trend in the Ontario jurisprudence refusing to certify class actions in the absence of compensable injury to class members.2
Background
Palmer v. Teva is one of a number of proposed class actions in Canada alleging psychological damage from the alleged increased risk of cancer resulting from exposure to nitrosamine impurities, which have been found in various prescription and over-the-counter medications.3 Palmer concerned allegations that the defendants' valsartan blood pressure medications contained N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA). NDMA and NDEA are ubiquitous and can be found in common foods and beverages, drinking water, and the air. NDMA and NDEA are not harmful at low levels and the FDA sets recommended daily intake limits for NDMA, NDEA and other nitrosamines.
Perell J. denied certification in Palmer in August 2022.4 In 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court summarily dismissed a similar action involving allegations of unacceptable levels of NDMA in ranitidine heartburn medications.5
In Palmer, the defendant manufacturers voluntarily recalled certain lots of valsartan products after discovering that the active pharmaceutical ingredient might contain NDMA and NDEA following manufacturing process changes. In the summer of 2018, Health Canada issued consumer bulletins relating to the defendants' valsartan recalls, but advised patients that they should continue taking their medications unless advised to the contrary by a physician or pharmacist. One of Health Canada's bulletins advised that based on the levels of NDMA found in valsartan, the potential increased risk of cancer over a lifetime was between 1:11,600 and 1:93,400 (i.e. one additional cancer case for every 11,600 or 93,000 people taking the product). The bulletin further put these figures into context, noting that "nearly 1 in 2 Canadians is expected to develop cancer during their lifetime."
The Palmer plaintiffs did not seek compensation for consumers who had been or may be diagnosed with any cancer as a result of consuming valsartan. Rather, they claimed for damages for the potential increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in the future, as well as costs for medical services and monitoring, refunds for medications consumed, costs for medications thrown away, and psychological and punitive damages.
In dismissing the certification motion and the action, Perell J. found that there was no basis in fact for concluding there is a causal relationship between valsartan and cancer, but some basis in fact for the proposition that exposure to NDMA and NDEA in contaminated valsartan very modestly increases the risk of being diagnosed with cancer. He found that a small proportion of class members will have sustained psychological harm for a relatively short period, but that it was plain and obvious that neither the risk of future physical or psychological harm nor the present anxiety occasioned by that risk is compensable in law. Perell J. also found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality and preferability criteria.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Outcome and Key Takeaways
In a long-awaited decision written by B.W. Miller J.A. (Huscroft and Paciocco JJ.A., concurring), the Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed Perell J.'s decision. The Court of Appeal's decision clarifies at least nine important principles in claims involving exposure to potentially harmful products and substances:
- Actual damage (physical or psychological) is an
essential element of a claim in negligence. Therefore,
mere allegations of damage that have never materialized, and may
never materialize, are doomed to fail.
- Claims for genotoxic injury (i.e. cellular or molecular
changes) without more are generally insufficient to establish
actual damage in negligence. As the Court stated,
"[a] physical change with no perceptible effect upon one's
health is not compensable in negligence."6
- Claims for present psychological harm based on the risk
of future injury may be compensable, but only if both aspects of
the test in Mustapha7 and
Saadati8 are met. The
Court of Appeal clarified that the Supreme Court of Canada's
decisions in Mustapha and Saadati have two aspects: (1) a basic
threshold for injury; and (2) an ordinary fortitude standard. The
plaintiffs' claim failed to meet the basic threshold because it
pled no material facts establishing mental injury that rose above
the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears experienced by people
living in civil society. The plaintiffs' claim would have also
foundered on the ordinary fortitude standard; the Health Canada
bulletins assuaged, rather than inflamed, consumers'
concerns.
- The test for pure economic loss requires
imminent risk of a real and substantial danger.
The basis for recovery for pure economic loss – that the
plaintiff must take steps to prevent an imminent injury that it
would otherwise suffer – "vanishes where the defect
presents no imminent threat".9 The plaintiffs'
claims for medical expenses and medical monitoring failed in
Palmer because it was plain and obvious that discarding
the pills was sufficient to avert any danger and pure economic loss
does not extend to other losses, such as product replacement value
or refunds.
- Exposure to an allegedly contaminated product does not
give rise to a claim in battery. While battery can be
committed intentionally or negligently, battery requires a direct,
offensive, physical contact with the plaintiff, which is the
immediate cause of the plaintiff's harm. And unlike negligence,
battery cannot be based on a "failure to act", which is
what the plaintiffs in Palmer alleged.
- As with negligence, damage is an essential element of
recovery for statutory claims for false, misleading, deceptive or
unconscionable representations under the Ontario Consumer
Protection Act, 2002.10 Section 18 of the
Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002 provides that the
primary remedy for an unfair practice is rescission, but s. 18 also
provides that "the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is
available in law, including damages." Damages for an increase
of a risk of harm or damages for mental injury that fail
to meet the Mustapha and Saadati standards are
not compensable "in law" under the statute.
- Failure to disclose a non-dangerous defect cannot
constitute a "representation" under s. 52(1) of the
Competition Act. Affirming prior
decisions,11 the Court of Appeal held that "[t]he
object of s. 52(1) is to target deceptive marketing practices, not
create liability for defective products."12
- Unjust enrichment claims against manufacturers for
product defects are generally not viable. The law of
unjust enrichment does not permit recovery for incidental
collateral benefits. In Palmer, any benefits received by the
defendants from class members were indirect (because the purchase
price for medications was paid to retailers, not the defendant
manufacturers). Furthermore, the Court of Appeal held that
plaintiffs do not suffer the element of "deprivation"
required for a claim in unjust enrichment where they received the
very product they bought. Class members paid for valsartan blood
pressure medication and received it.
- Claims for psychological injury, even if compensable, may be uncertifiable if they are inherently idiosyncratic. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that even if some claims for psychological harm based on fear of cancer were viable on the pleadings, at most, a minority of the class would have suffered compensable psychological injury based on the evidence. The "hard work" therefore remained for the individual issues trials and a common issues trial would have been of marginal utility.
To view the full article, click here.
Footnotes
1. Palmer v. Teva, 2024 ONCA 220.
2. See e.g. Hoy v. Expedia Group, Inc., 2024 ONSC 1462 (Div. Ct.), at para. 85.
3. See Health Canada, "Nitrosamine impurities in medications: Overview", online: https://www.canada.ca/en/healthcanada/services/drugs-health-products/compliance-enforcement/information-health-product/drugs/nitrosamine-impurities.html.
4. Palmer v. Teva, 2022 ONSC 4690.
5. Dussiaume v. Sandoz Canada Inc., 2023 BCSC 795.
6. Palmer v. Teva, 2024 ONCA 220, at para. 52.
7. Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, at para. 3.
8. Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28.
9. Palmer v. Teva, 2024 ONCA 220, citing 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2020 SCC 35, at para. 46.
10. Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A.
11. Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, at paras. 50-51 citing Williams v. Canon Canada Inc., 2011 ONSC 6571, at para. 227, aff'd on other grounds, Williams v. Canon Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 3692 (Div. Ct.).
12. Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34.
To view the original article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.