Oh, Canada!

by Dechert LLP
Contact

We’ve blogged before, occasionally, about drug/device developments north of the border.  Most of these developments have involved class action practice, where Canadian law is considerably more liberal than the corresponding rules here in the USA.

But there’s a point at which class actions fail even under Canadian law.  That point was recently reached in the parallel Seroquel litigation pending in Ontario.  We’re pleased to report that, in Martin v. AztraZeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC, No. 06-CV-314632CP, slip op. (Ont. Super. May 7, 2012), the court flatly rejected class certification.

Unlike the Canadian judiciary (the opinion is 78 pages long, single spaced), we’ll try to keep this report brief.

The class was huge and undifferentiated – “all persons” in Canada who “ever used Seroquel.”  Slip op. at ¶5. Likewise, the alleged injuries were everything under the sun.  Id. ¶¶7-9.  The claims are the same that we typically see in the USA, a hodgepodge of inadequate warning, off-label promotion, and fraud on regulatory agency allegations.  Id. ¶¶11-13.  Their experts were also eye-rollingly familiar to US litigators, Laura Plunkett and William Wirsching.  Id. ¶¶26-28.  As often happens in the US, Plunkett was ruled incompetent to offer any medical opinions.  Id. ¶¶50.  More interestingly, since it's part of her schtick, Plunket was also held incompetent to testify about Canadian regulations, since her only background involved the American FDA.  Id. ¶¶65-66.  Contrary to the plaintiffs’ apparent position, Canada is not simply an appendage of the US.

Despite having sophisticated class action counsel, plaintiffs were really lousy pleaders.  “It is plain and obvious that the causes of action as pleaded will fail.”  Id. ¶108.  Among other things, they “lump” differently situated defendants “together as a group” and allege that everybody’s liable for everything.  Id. ¶109.  Maybe we should call these pleading rulings “Canadian TwIqbal” or “CwIqbal” for short.  Whatever it’s called, the plaintiffs couldn’t meet the standard and the entire complaint was pitched.

How can counsel who can’t or won’t satisfy the most basic pleading requirements possibly be considered “adequate” for class action purposes?

Just a thought.

Another interesting holding in Martin – at least to us, since we don’t know much Canadian substantive law – is that it’s essential in design defect cases to plead “a safer and economical alternative design.”  Id. ¶¶136-37.  That’s also the law in many US jurisdictions.  Of course plaintiffs can’t plead an actual alternative design in most drug cases, so they just plead that somehow some other drug is safer.  That didn’t cut it in Martin.  Id. ¶136.

Also, apparently off-label use is regarded in Canada in the same fashion as it is in the USA, something we had always assumed, but never knew for certain:
 

"[T]he negligent distributing, marketing and sale cause of action has a further defect as it relates to off-label uses. It is deficient and will fail because the defendants did not have the duty to “ensure” that [the drug] was not distributed, marketed or sold for off-label uses. This is because doctors have the legal right to prescribe [a drug] for off-label uses, regardless of the defendants’ conduct."

Martin, slip op. ¶155.

In sum, the plaintiffs’ abject failure to plead viable claims was the first and foremost ground for rejecting the class action.  Id. ¶¶191-92.  It was hardly the only ground, however.  The court went on to determine that the class failed to satisfy the prerequisites of Canadian class certification.
 

  • There was no identifiable class.  Martin, slip op.  ¶¶198-206.
  • The class definition was ridiculously overbroad, including many people who were helped, not harmed by the drug.  Id. ¶¶207-09.
  • There were no common issues because the plaintiffs failed to describe the claimed injury with any clarity.  Id. ¶¶221-28.
  • Weight gain and diabetes could not be common issues because both conditions are “ubiquitous” and can be caused by a great many things.  Id. ¶¶232-54.
  • Allegations of off-label promotion were not logically connected to any claim because no promotion was established that involved any of the plaintiffs’ physicians.  Id. ¶¶255-57.
  • Off-label use could not be a common issue because it’s legal, widespread and not tortious.  Id. ¶¶258-62. The plaintiffs’ own medical expert admitted that he personally prescribed the drug off label on a regular basis.  Id. ¶287.
  • Plaintiffs failed to establish any evidence of off-label promotion in Canada.  Evidence concerning the USA was not evidence concerning Canada.  Id. ¶¶263-76.
  • Off-label use was not a common issue because there are lots of such uses with nothing in common.  Id. ¶¶277-80.
  • Since plaintiffs conceded that the drug was effective, its “defectiveness” could not be a common issue.  Id. ¶283.
  • Duty could not be common “because the issue lumps all defendants and different types of negligence together and draws no distinction” between on and off-label use.  Id. ¶285.
  • When a duty to warn arose could not be common because the warnings were changed numerous times since the drug was on the market, and thus were not the same throughout the class.  Id. ¶290.  The weight gain warning in particular changed seven separate times, and the diabetes warnings even more.  Id. ¶¶293, 298-301.
  • Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions about warnings in the USA were not relevant to Canada, and the Canadian warnings weren’t criticized.  Id. ¶¶303-15.
  • Other supposedly common issues were stated with such extreme generality that their resolution would not advance the progress of the litigation.  Id. ¶¶322-28.
  • The litigation was in Canada.  It didn’t matter whether the defendants violated regulations imposed by the American FDA.  Id. 329-44.
  • Since the plaintiffs failed to establish any common issues on liability, there was no need to decide whether there were common issues concerning remedy.  Id. ¶¶345-53.
  • The representative plaintiffs were woefully ignorant, having never even read the drug’s warnings.  They didn't exhibit sufficient “interest and commitment” to the litigation.  Id. ¶¶362-68.
  • Plaintiff’s litigation plan was “a work of fiction.”  Id. ¶¶369-74.

In reading through the lengthy Martin opinion one thing jumped over and over.  The plaintiffs' treatment of the entire country of Canada bordered on contempt – arguing that whatever might support a claim in the USA should simply be assumed to apply to Canada as well.  Class action (and other) litigants would do well to remember that Canada is an sovereign country with its own independent system for the regulation of drugs.  As for litigants such as these plaintiffs and their experts, who treated the forum country as little more than an annoying afterthought, we recommend: 

YANKEE GO HOME!

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP
Contact
more
less

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!