|
Class Actions - General. Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia
In Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia (SCC, 2024) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal, that against a BCCA decision dismissing an appeal, that of a dismissal by the BC Superior Court of an application by the corporate defendants in a consumer opioid damages class action, who sought an interlocutory division-of-powers ultra vires declaration against a class-action-supporting BC statutory provision [the 'Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, s.11'].
Here the court considers the concept of 'litigation autonomy':[63] An individual’s “litigation autonomy” has been described as an important collection of rights, such as the right to appoint counsel of choice, the right to participate in developing litigation strategy, and the right to negotiate a settlement to the action (Johnson v. Ontario, 2022 ONCA 725, 475 D.L.R. (4th) 344, at para. 47; Coburn and Watson’s Metropolitan Home v. Home Depot of Canada Inc., 2019 BCCA 308, 438 D.L.R. (4th) 533, at para. 14). “Our society places a high premium on a person’s ability to initiate and participate in litigation as an incident of personal autonomy” (Johnson v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 650, 158 O.R. (3d) 266, at para. 16). When an individual chooses to participate as a member in a class action, they necessarily also choose to give up some of these rights as “the price paid to receive the benefit from a class proceeding” (Coburn and Watson’s Metropolitan Home, at para. 14; M. H. Redish, Wholesale Justice: Constitutional Democracy and the Problem of the Class Action Lawsuit (2009), at pp. 135-75). The court considers this concept more fully at paras 61-71.
|
