As previously reported, there are multiple ongoing class actions in Canada against pharmaceutical companies related to opioid use.
Additional decisions have recently issued in these proceedings, including the following:
Ontario
In Gebien v Apotex Inc, 2026 ONSC 5428, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a motion under section 27.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, approving a $29.3 million settlement against three Defendants: Purdue Canada, Valeant and Mylan.
The Court found the settlement was reasonable. Regarding Purdue Canada, the Court considered both the litigation risk inherent in the claim and the financial risk of litigating against a defendant threatening insolvency. Regarding Valeant and Mylan, the Court considered the overall litigation risks and the prospect of dismissal if a representative plaintiff could not be found.
The Court also approved the distribution protocol, holding it was in the best interests of the class as a whole. The Court found that it was a fair and reasonable means of distributing the settlement funds and it provides an accessible claims process, while ensuring that those who suffered the most acutely can access the most compensation. The Court further approved class counsel fees and litigation funding payments.
British Columbia
In Noramco LLC v British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 272, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (BCCA) dismissed the appeals of pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and related companies (the Appellants), upholding a decision certifying a proposed class action brought by the province of British Columbia (the Province) on behalf of Canadian governments against the Appellants that seeks to recover the health care costs governments incurred in their response to the harms allegedly caused by the overprescription of opioid medications.
The Appellants argued that the judge erred in finding there was some basis in fact to ground the common issues, and in concluding a class proceeding was the preferable procedure. However, applying the appellate standard of review, the BCCA found that it was open to the judge on the admissible evidence before him to certify the common issues and to conclude a class proceeding was the preferable procedure. The BCCA stated that “as a nation-wide mass tort claim, this is precisely the type of claim the Class Proceedings Act … and [Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act] were designed to facilitate.”
One appellant, LPG Inventory Solutions (LPG), also argued that the judge erred in failing to give effect to its jurisdictional objections. The BCCA disagreed, holding that the judge did not make any reversible error in rejecting LPG’s challenge to subject matter jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Pharmaceutical Litigation Group.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.