Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia
- LSOU Publications
- Sep 11
- 3 min read
Written By : Isabella Joseph
Case name and citation:
Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia, 2024 SCC 40
Facts:
In 2018 British Columbia brought an action against pharmaceutical companies that manufacture, market and distribute opioid products throughout Canada.
This is because they believe that these companies significantly contributed to high rates of addiction and death related to the opioid crisis across every region of Canada.
The BC government alleges that the defendants contributed to the effects of the epidemic by falsely marketing their products as less addictive or prone to abuse than other pain killers.
Section 11 of the Opioid Damages and Healthcare Recovery Act (ORA) allowed BC to bring an action forward on behalf of multiple governments but any government can opt out if they please.
The defendants argued that this is unconstitutional as it falls beyond the authority of the constitution.
The application judge dismissed these claims, thus they brought them to the court of appeals.
The defendants appeals were dismissed both in the court of appeal and in the Supreme Court.
Procedural Posture:
The government of British Columbia asked the Supreme Court to certify the action as a class that would proceed all governments an accordance with Section 11 of ORA.
During the submission of the action defendants argued that this would undermine the territorial limits of British Columbia’s power as well of the sovereignty and autonomy of other Canadian governments.
The application judge dismissed these claims stating that Section 11 of ORA is purely a procedural mechanism for British Columbia to represent other governments in relation to widespread opioid related wrongs.
In the court of appeal the defendant's claims were dismissed.
The case was then brought to the Supreme Court where the appeal was dismissed again.
Issue:
Does Section 11 of ORA impact the substantive civil rights of the other Canadian governments?
Rule Applied:
Provincial Statute that allows purely procedural power to represent other governments in a class action with relation to opioids is not in violation of the constitutionally. Meaning that if a law allows for power that does not substantively remove power from other provinces it is not in violation of the constitution. In this case this is especially true due to the cross border nature of the opioid crisis.
Holding:
The Supreme Court agrees with the approach taken by the application judge that due to the nature of the statute it is indeed constitutional for the government of British Columbia to bring a class action on behalf of multiple governments specifically with regards to harm caused by the opioid epidemic.
Reasoning:
The majority made their decision that the ORA was intra vires.
Their reasoning for this judgment was that section 11 of the ORA does not deal with substantive rights, because its objectives are meaningfully connected to the province of British Columbia while also respecting the sovereignty of other Canadian governments:
Classified under Section 92(14) of the constitution act this legislation is considered a legitimate exercise of authority to administrate justice in their province.
This precedent is set by British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 which sets out an initial framework for cases such as these.
Result:
Affirms the decisions of the lower courts
This implies that provinces can enact similar legislation and open class actions representing multiple provinces even if they are not subject to that legislation. However provinces must have an opt out option.
Concurrences and Dissents:
The dissenting judge agrees that ORA is constitutionally sound, however the dissent submits that section 11 of ORA is attempting to legislate property and civil rights outside of the province contrary to limitations set out in S.92 of the constitution act.
Sources
Comments