464 results found

Canadian courts are increasingly confronted with parallel class actions across multiple provinces, particularly in life sciences litigation involving the same drug or device.

In North v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG1, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned an order certifying a product liability class...

In a recent class action decision, Wise v. Abbott Laboratories Limited, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in advance of certification...

On June 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the case of Clements v Clements.

The Canadian federal government recently introduced new legislation which, if enacted, will significantly change the regulatory regime for foods, therapeutic products (which includes drugs, natural health products and medical devices), cosmetics and other consumer products.

In the recent decision in Bustin v Quaranto, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a defendant's motion to strike a claim brought by a bystander alleging personal injuries...

Canada’s Natural Health Products (NHPs) regime was implemented with the promulgation of the Natural Health Products Regulations (Regulations) on January 1, 2004. NHPs are Canada’s equivalent to dietary supplements in the United States, and include vitamins, minerals and herbs.

When the Prime Minister, during a pre-Christmas visit to a Salvation Army toy depot, announced the Canada Consumer Product Safety Action Plan, a lot of people would have assumed that the government’s Plan was directed at the safety of consumer products such as toys. And, given the rash of toy recalls for lead paint content that had occurred during 2007, they’d have been right. But the government’s Plan is so much more than that as evidenced by Bill C-52 which was introduced in April, 2007.

As in recent years, class actions are anticipated to be an ever-present concern for the automotive sector in 2021, increasingly seeking to certify classes national in scope.

In Price v Smith & Wesson Corp., 2021 ONSC 1114, Justice Perrell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the viability of product liability claims advanced against a gun manufacturer...

The number of recalls and public notices of voluntary product withdrawals that have been issued over the last year is unprecedented in Canada. These recalls and notices have resulted in a far greater visibility and awareness of product safety and quality issues.

On November 6, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released a 5-4 decision on recovery of negligently-caused pure economic loss that will be significant for defendants...

In Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soin de Sante Inc., a unanimous division of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia restricted the ability of plaintiffs to claim disgorgement based on statutory causes of action found in the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act ("BPCPA") and Competition Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada represents a major change in the law as it relates to a general liability insurer’s duty to defend a contractor against a claim in which it is alleged that the contractor’s work or materials are defective and have resulted in damage to other components of the project for which the contractor was contractually responsible.

Can consumers subject to an increased risk of harm from a product successfully certify a product liability class action even though the harm has not yet, and may never...

On July 4, 2011, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed a motion filed by Option consommateurs (Petitioner) for authorization to institute a class action against one of our clients, Merck Canada Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck).

A Quebec Superior Court partially authorized a class action against 13 automakers over smart key vulnerabilities that enable relay attacks, raising critical questions about manufacturer liability for cybersecurity flaws and the extent of their duty to inform consumers about technology-related risks. The decision also breaks new ground by addressing whether AI-generated translations can be admitted as evidence in court proceedings.