Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court certified a proposed class action against JUUL Labs Canada, JUUL Labs, Inc., and Altria Group, Inc. despite continued opposition from both sets of defendants.
   
• Justice Giaschi rejected the JUUL Defendants' argument that subclasses were a mandatory precondition to certification under section 6 of the Class Proceedings Act.
   
• Altria sought to revisit multiple findings from the 2025 Reasons, including jurisdictional conclusions, but the court declined to reopen them.
   
• Recent appellate authorities, including Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27, were found not to materially alter the earlier jurisdictional analysis.
   
• Representative plaintiffs Owen Mann-Campbell and Robert Osborn were confirmed to lead the certified class.
   
• Approval of the litigation plan and notice plan accompanied the certification order, along with certification of the amended common issues.
   

Facts of the case

This proceeding arises from a proposed class action against JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd. ("JLC"), JUUL Labs, Inc. ("JLI"), and Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria"), seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered from the use of JUUL-branded e-cigarette devices. The action was commenced on September 30, 2019 against JLC and JLI, with Altria added as a defendant on September 18, 2022. A certification hearing was first held over several days [seven days, per para. 10 of the judgment] in December 2023 and May 2024. In reasons released May 14, 2025 (2025 BCSC 771, the "2025 Reasons"), Justice Giaschi identified deficiencies in the fourth amended notice of civil claim, the proposed class definition, and the proposed common issues, and adjourned the certification application to permit amendments rather than dismissing it. Separately, Altria's earlier challenge to the court's jurisdiction had been dismissed in 2022 BCSC 1807, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2024 BCCA 99, with leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently denied. Following settlement of the order arising from the 2025 Reasons, the JUUL Defendants unsuccessfully sought Justice Giaschi's recusal on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias, a ruling dismissed on December 19, 2025. The plaintiffs filed an amended notice of application on August 8, 2025, incorporating a proposed fifth amended notice of civil claim and revised common issues, and the certification hearing resumed before Justice Giaschi from January 27 to 29, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Central to the analysis were sections 4 and 6 of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1986, c. 50 ("CPA"). Section 4(1) sets out the certification requirements, including that the pleadings disclose a cause of action, that there be some basis in fact for an identifiable class, that the claims raise common issues, and that a class proceeding be the preferable procedure. Section 6 addresses when subclasses must be created, providing that a court must not certify a proceeding unless a separate representative plaintiff is appointed for any subclass whose members' interests require separate representation. The JUUL Defendants argued that section 6, along with several paragraphs of the 2025 Reasons, mandated the creation of subclasses before certification could proceed. Altria, for its part, challenged the adequacy of the proposed fifth amended notice of civil claim under section 4(1)(a) and disputed whether the amended common issues satisfied section 4(1)(c) as against it, while also raising preferable procedure concerns under section 4(1)(d) tied to its status as an alleged indirect investor with no direct role in distributing or marketing JUUL products in Canada.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Giaschi reviewed paragraphs 209, 216, 304, and 329(c)(ii) of the 2025 Reasons and concluded that none of them directed, expressly or implicitly, that subclasses be created before certification; they merely recognized that subclasses would likely be required eventually. Turning to section 6 of the CPA, the court held that subclasses are only required where separate representation is necessary to protect subclass members from an insurmountable conflict of interest, relying on Cheetham v. Bank of Montreal, 2023 BCSC 1319 and Tataskweyak Cree Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 MBQB 153. The JUUL Defendants' reliance on Kidd v. Canada Life, 2011 ONSC 6324 was found to be a selective reading, since Kidd itself confirms that differences among class members create a conflict of interest only where they affect the representative plaintiff's ability to fairly represent the class. Because the JUUL Defendants had not identified any such conflict, the court found subclasses were not a certification requirement. As for Altria's submissions, Justice Giaschi declined to revisit findings from the 2025 Reasons, reasoning that the earlier adjournment was granted solely to permit specified amendments, not to allow relitigation; that Altria had already had a full opportunity to argue its position on an extensive record; that revisiting settled findings would undermine the objective of a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution given nearly seven years of litigation; and that Altria's proper recourse for any perceived inadequacy in the 2025 Reasons lay with the Court of Appeal. The court further found that Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27 did not materially change the jurisdictional framework applied in the earlier Jurisdiction Reasons, and that Carcillo v. Ontario Major Junior Hockey League, 2025 ONCA 652, while addressing litigation plan adequacy, was not binding in this jurisdiction. New evidence Altria sought to introduce, including government publications on vaping, was found insignificant and insufficient to alter the earlier findings.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Giaschi granted the plaintiffs' application, allowing certification of the action as a class proceeding under the CPA. The plaintiffs, Owen Mann-Campbell and Robert Osborn, were successful, obtaining leave to file the proposed fifth amended notice of civil claim, certification of the class as defined, confirmation of the class period running from August 1, 2018 to the date of certification, appointment of themselves as representative plaintiffs, appointment of Siskinds LLP and Rice Harbut Elliott LLP as class counsel, certification of the amended common issues, and approval of both the litigation plan and notice plan. No monetary damages, costs, or specific award was ordered or quantified in this decision, as the ruling was confined to certification of the proceeding rather than a determination of liability or damages.