The year 2024 was another noteworthy year for class actions in British Columbia. In this article, we provide an overview of key developments and trends from 2024, and areas to watch in 2025.
Key legal developments of 2024
1. Supreme Court of Canada confirms constitutionality of government-led class actions
The Supreme Court of Canada delivered a landmark class action ruling in November 2024, deeming British Columbia's role as representative plaintiff for a class of provincial, territorial, and federal governments and agencies constitutional (see Sanis Health Inc. v British Columbia, 2024 SCC 40).
The B.C. government commenced the underlying action in 2018. The province sued 49 manufacturers, marketers, and distributers of opioid products for allegedly contributing to the opioid epidemic by falsely marketing opioids. British Columbia brought the action on behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial, and territorial governments and agencies that had paid healthcare, pharmaceutical, and treatment costs related to opioids.
After filing the action, the legislature of British Columbia enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (ORA) to create a new statutory cause of action in the litigation. Section 11 of the ORA authorizes British Columbia to bring an action as representative plaintiff on behalf of the proposed government class.
In 2022, several of the defendants challenged s. 11 as ultra vires or "outside" the powers and authority of the British Columbia legislature. The defendants argued that s. 11 did not respect the constitution's limits on provincial powers, and undermined the sovereignty of Canada's other governments by making them passive class members. The B.C. Supreme Court held s.11 to be constitutional (see British Columbia v Apotex Inc., 2022 BCSC 2147.) This ruling was unanimously upheld by the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2023 (see Sandoz Canada Inc. v British Columbia, 2023 BCCA 306). The defendants were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the defendants' appeal. The court held that the "pith and substance" or dominant characteristic of s.11 is not to usurp other province's substantive rights, but to create a procedural mechanism to apply the ORA to the already existing opioid-related litigation. Section 11 of the ORA properly falls under the provincial powers to enact laws and regulations pertaining to the courts and civil procedure. Lastly, s. 11 does not constrain the other Canadian governments, as they could choose...
