BC Supreme Court certifies class action on JUUL-branded e-cigarette devices

The British Columbia Supreme Court certified a class proceeding against defendants JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd., JUUL Labs, Inc., and Altria Group Inc., commenced by plaintiffs who pursued damages for personal injuries due to the use of JUUL-branded e-cigarette devices. 

In Mann-Campbell v JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1288, the plaintiffs applied to certify the proposed class action via a notice of application filed on Nov. 25, 2021. 

The plaintiffs pleaded causes of action for negligence, toxic tort, breach of consumer protection legislation, contractual breach, unjust enrichment, civil fraud, conspiracy, breach of the federal Competition Act, 1985, and breach of BC’s Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2008. 

In a response filed on Dec. 2, 2020, Altria disputed the court’s jurisdiction and sought to dismiss or stay the claim against it. 

BC Supreme Court’s prior reasons

In its jurisdiction reasons released on Oct. 14, 2022, the BC Supreme Court found a good, arguable case that the claim against Altria alleged a tort committed in the province. The court added that Altria failed to rebut the resulting presumption of jurisdiction under s. 10(g) of BC’s Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, 2003. 

In reasons released on May 14, 2025, the court decided that the plaintiffs disclosed causes of action against some or all the defendants, except for the toxic tort and fraud claims. The court also saw irregularities and ambiguities that required correction. 

The court adjourned the certification application to permit the plaintiffs to amend the class definition and the proposed common issues. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to amend the fourth amended notice of civil claim to: 

• Delete the claim for damages for purchasing and using JUUL products when they would not have otherwise done so 
• Correct the ambiguity regarding the defendants’ direct sales to consumers 
• Remove the toxic tort and fraud claims 

Certification granted

Claiming that they had addressed the issues identified in the 2025 reasons, the plaintiffs again applied for certification. The defendants opposed certification. 

Altria alleged that it was only an indirect investor in JUUL Labs, Inc. for a limited period and was not involved in designing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, or selling JUUL products in Canada. 

The Supreme Court of British Columbia allowed certification under BC’s Class Proceedings Act, 1986, upon confirming that the plaintiffs had made the necessary amendments. In its orders, the court: 

• permitted the plaintiffs to file the proposed fifth amended notice of civil claim 
• defined the class as Canadian residents, except for excluded persons, who used and bought JUUL devices or pods in Canada for primarily personal purposes from Aug. 1, 2018, until the certification date (the class period) 
• named two representative plaintiffs 
• appointed Siskinds LLP and Rice Harbut Elliott LLP as class counsel 
• certified the common issues 
• approved the litigation and notice plans 

BC Supreme Court’s findings

First, the BC Supreme Court did not consider the creation of subclasses a certification requirement. The court ruled that the JUUL defendants failed to show: 

• a conflict of interest 
• any differences impacting the representative plaintiffs’ ability to sufficiently and fairly represent all class members 
• the need for separate representation to protect the subclass members’ interests 

Lastly, rather than extensively addressing Altria’s submissions, the court refused to reopen or revisit the findings and determinations in the 2025 reasons. The court pointed out that Altria was trying to reargue issues already addressed and decided in the 2025 reasons. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!