Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Certification of a Canada-wide class proceeding challenged, focusing on battery and certain remedial issues.

• Directness requirement for battery claims scrutinized, resulting in decertification of battery as a common issue.

• Admissibility of evidence, including hearsay and public record exceptions, critically examined at the certification stage.

• Disgorgement and restitution remedies found inappropriate for negligence, limiting certified remedies to punitive damages.

• Specific causation required for damages and health care cost recovery, restricting these as common issues.

• Plaintiffs’ evidence sufficient to support certification of negligence and punitive damages, but not for broader remedial claims.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

This case involves Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, Syngenta Canada Inc., and Syngenta Crop Protection AG as appellants (defendants), and Johannes Van Wijngaarden and the Estate of Wayne Gionet as respondents (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs sought to certify a national class action against Syngenta, alleging that exposure to herbicides containing paraquat, marketed and sold by Syngenta and its predecessors from the early 1960s to 2017, increased the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. The plaintiffs claimed Syngenta knew or should have known about the risk and failed to warn users, seeking remedies for negligence, battery, and unjust enrichment.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified the class proceeding for claims in negligence and battery, as well as common issues regarding general damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and recovery of health care costs. Syngenta appealed the certification of battery and certain remedial issues, arguing that the pleadings did not support a cause of action in battery, that some evidence was improperly admitted, and that certain remedies were not suitable for class-wide determination.

Key legal issues

The court examined whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in battery, focusing on the legal requirement of directness in battery claims. It also considered the admissibility of various forms of evidence, including expert reports, hearsay, and documents appended to affidavits. The appropriateness of certifying common issues related to remedies such as disgorgement, restitution, and health care cost recovery was also reviewed, as well as whether general damages could be determined on a class-wide basis.

Outcome of the appeal

The court allowed the appeal in part. It found that the pleadings did not support certification of a battery claim because the requirement of directness was not met; exposure to a product through the stream of commerce did not constitute direct physical contact necessary for battery. The court also held that certain remedial issues, including disgorgement, restitution, general damages, and subrogated health care costs, could not be certified as common issues because they depended on findings of specific causation or were not available remedies for negligence. However, the court upheld the certification of negligence and punitive damages as common issues, finding sufficient evidence to support these aspects.

No damages or costs awarded

The decision was made at the certification stage, which determines whether the class action can proceed but does not resolve liability or award damages. No damages were awarded, and the judgment did not specify any award of costs. The outcome limited the class action to claims in negligence and punitive damages, striking battery and several remedial issues from the certified common issues.