Law360 Canada (June 30, 2026, 1:19 PM EDT) -- The B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld the certification of a class action against opioid manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers over health-care costs arising from the opioid crisis, rejecting arguments that the plaintiffs were required to produce more detailed evidence to support certification.

In Noramco LLC v. British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 272, released June 24, a bench of Chief Justice Leonard Marchand and Justices David Harris and Nitya Iyer rejected the defendants’ argument that the province was required to produce detailed, defendant-specific evidence to support certification of claims including negligent design, failure to warn and misrepresentation.

“To require evidence of the level of detail, specificity, and particularity contended for by the appellants here would frustrate the purpose of the certification criteria as a preliminary, pre-discovery, early-stage procedural (non-merits) step designed to focus on the form of the proceeding and to advance the litigation and prevent a common issues trial from foundering at the merits stage,” the bench wrote.

The court noted that the inquiry into whether there is some basis in fact to conclude that the claims raise issues that can be decided commonly should not become a “concealed merits test.”

The class action was brought by the Province of British Columbia on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments that paid health-care, pharmaceutical, treatment and other costs relating to opioids from 1996 to the present.

B.C. has alleged that manufacturers, generic manufacturers and distributors engaged in coordinated, industry-wide misconduct by over-promoting opioids for inappropriate uses, misrepresenting their risks and benefits, and thereby contributing to a national opioid crisis.

The defendants include manufacturers Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Inc., Apotex Inc., Teva Canada and Bausch Health Companies Inc., as well as distributor McKesson Canada Corp.

The class action relies in part on the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which came into force in October 2018 and is designed to facilitate proceedings by the provincial government against manufacturers, wholesalers or consultants to recover health-care costs arising from opioid-related wrongs.

In British Columbia v. Apotex Inc., 2025 BCSC 92, the B.C. Supreme Court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding that resolving the common issues would materially advance the litigation and avoid significant duplication of factual and legal analysis that would arise if governments pursued separate actions.

The defendants challenged the decision, arguing that the certification judge erred in finding there was some basis in fact to ground the common issues and in concluding that a class action was the preferable procedure for resolving the plaintiff’s claims.

They argued that the province was required to produce defendant-specific evidence supporting its allegations of misrepresentation, failure to warn and negligent design, including evidence of what each defendant knew or ought to have known about the undisclosed risks of opioid use at the relevant times.

They also argued the province was required to identify what was and was not disclosed about each opioid product and establish that each product was distributed in quantities exceeding a legitimate market.

The bench rejected these arguments, noting that the appellants were demanding a degree of specificity and particularity in the evidence that went well beyond what is sufficient to provide some basis in fact for a common issue.

The court held that establishing “some basis in fact” for allegations of industry-wide wrongdoing did not require direct, defendant-specific evidence about every opioid product, every representation made about those products or coordination between each defendant.

“Generalized expert evidence can be enough to show there is some factual basis for the common issues claims. Similarly, in our view, evidence illustrative of a more general claim may be sufficient,” the bench wrote, adding that courts have frequently recognized that much of the evidence necessary to address the merits of alleged common issues may well be unavailable to plaintiffs before discovery.

“It may come to light only after certification. This practical reality should not frustrate the certification of an otherwise legitimate class proceeding,” the bench wrote.

The defendants also argued that the certification judge failed to appreciate the scope of the individual issues that would remain following a common issues trial in his preferability analysis.

They submitted that individual causation issues are significant and complex, including disentangling legitimate from illegitimate opioid use and addressing differences in provincial regulatory schemes and prescribing practices.

The court accepted that individual issues would likely be significant but held that the complexities associated with individual causation issues did not undermine the judge’s finding that the common issues are central to the case.

The bench concluded that the certification judge did not err in finding that a class action was the preferable procedure.

“This is particularly so given how central the common issues are to resolving this case,” the bench wrote, dismissing the appeal.

Counsel for B.C., Jen Winstanley of CFM Lawyers, said the court had “confirmed that certification is a procedural step, and the parties should move efficiently towards trial, where the issue of the defendants’ potential liability for the national opioid crisis will be decided on its merits.”

Reidar Mogerman and Katie Duke of CFM Lawyers and Avichay Sharon of Branch MacMaster LLP also acted as counsel for the province.

Counsel for Janssen Inc. and Johnson & Johnson were Gordon McKee, Robin Reinertson, Karine Russell and Joshua Hutchinson of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.

Counsel for McKesson Canada Corp. and McKesson Corp. were Sandra Forbes and Chanakya Sethi of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, together with articling student Rushnan Anusha.

Counsel for Teva were Craig Lockwood, Emily MacKinnon and Simone Penney of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.

Counsel for Apotex Inc. were Harry Radomski and Nando De Luca of Goodmans LLP.

If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.