Law360 Canada ( September 21, 2026, 9:37 AM EDT) -- Application by Janssen Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (collectively, Janssen) to cancel an order quashing their appeal. The application arose in the context of a class proceeding commenced by the Province of British Columbia (Province) on behalf of itself and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to recover health care, pharmaceutical, and treatment costs relating to prescription opioids. Janssen sought documentary discovery from class members pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Class Proceedings Act (CPA). Justice Ross dismissed that application. While other defendants sought and obtained leave to appeal, Janssen maintained that it had an appeal as of right and filed a notice of appeal. The Province applied to quash the appeal. Butler JA quashed the appeal, finding that there was no right of appeal from an order made under s. 17(2) of the CPA. Janssen applied to cancel that order. Janssen argued that Butler JA erred in interpreting s. 36(1) of the CPA, failed to apply the modern rule of statutory interpretation, and erred in concluding that s. 36(1) of the CPA barred an appeal from an order under s. 17(2) of the CPA. The Province submitted that the central issue was whether Butler JA erred in treating the obiter comments in Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Ewert (Ewert) as authoritative and dispositive of the appeal-right issue....