In February 2003, a newspaper article appeared in La Presse reporting that certain unnamed generic pharmaceutical manufacturers would have given "illegal" rebates and other benefits to pharmacists in Québec and other provinces. Two days later, solely based on this newspaper article, a proposed class action was instituted. The action sought $3.9 billion in damages on behalf of all Québec residents against nine manufacturers of generic medications on the grounds that the manufacturers would have allegedly failed to deduct the "value" of these rebates and other "benefits" from the prices of medications under Québec’s publicly administered drug insurance plan.

In her decision of January 17, 2006, Madam Justice Claudine Roy held that while the legislator had reduced to a minimum Québec's class action authorization criteria, there must, at least, be some minimum factual foundation to allow the Court to have sufficient information to appreciate the seriousness of the proposed class action before it can authorize it. Roy J. further held that this information was severely lacking ("faisait cruellement défaut") in this case and that there simply was no basis for her to find that there was any appearance of fault, damages, or a causal link that would have triggered the liability of the manufacturers. In the end, the Court held that the proposed action, with all of its amendments and modifications, was nothing but a "moving target" that lacked serious factual allegations that would have given rise to a cause of action against the manufacturers. The Court was simply not prepared to authorize a class action riddled with such numerous factual gaps and to conclude that the petitioner had a serious case based on "pure speculations" drawn from a newspaper article.

It is interesting to note that the Court rejected Option Consommateurs' claims that it was an adequate representative, and that the mere fact that Option Consommateurs had acted in this capacity in other class actions was conclusive of the matter. Finally, Roy J. concluded that Option Consommateurs had failed to allege any facts showing that it had the significant resources necessary to take a matter of this complexity and magnitude to trial. Option Consommateurs has 30 days to appeal this judgment.

Davies, with a team made up of Guy Du Pont, Nick Rodrigo, David Stolow and Mathieu Bouchard, successfully represented Pharmascience Inc. in these proceedings. Davies is involved in some of the largest and most complex class action litigation matters in the country and this victory cements Davies' pre-eminent reputation in this field.

Please do not hesitate to call Nick Rodrigo (514-841-6548), David Stolow (514-841-6567) or Mathieu Bouchard (514-841-6479) if you would like further information on this case or to obtain a complete copy of the decision.

The information and comments herein are for the general information of the reader and are not intended as advice or opinions to be relied upon in relation to any particular circumstance. For particular applications of the law to specific situations, the reader should seek professional advice.