2019 QCCA 105, 2019 QCCA 105

Charles c. Boiron Canada inc. 2019 QCCA 105 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-027865-187, 500-09-027866-185 (500-06-000609-129) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: January 25, 2019 THE HONOURABLE robert m. mainville, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL adanna charles Mtre JEFFREY ORENSTEIN (Absent) Mtre andrea grass ( Absent ) ( Groupe de droit des consommateurs inc.) RESPONDENT COUNSEL BOIRON CANADA INC.

Mtre MARIE-LOUISE DELISLE Mtre MARIE-PIER CLOUTIER ( Woods s.e.n.c.r.l.) DESCRIPTION: Applications for leave to appeal from judgments rendered in the course of the proceedings on September 6, 2018 by the Honourable Suzanne Courchesne of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. (Art. 31, 357 C.C.P. ) Clerk: Mihary Andrianaivo Courtroom: RC.18

HEARING 9:46 Continuation of the hearing of January 23, 2019. The presence of the Parties is required today. However, both Counsel for the Petitioner are absent. BY THE JUDGE: Judgment – See page 3. 9:52 Address by Mtre Marie-Louise Delisle. 9:53 Exchanges between the Judge and Mtre Delisle with regard to the appeal management. 9:55 End of the hearing. Mihary Andrianaivo Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On October 26, 2016, the Court authorized Adanna Charle’s (“Charles”) to institute a class action against Boiron Canada Inc. (“Boiron”) and identified the following principal questions of fact and of law to be treated collectively in that action:

a) Did the defendant engage in unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices regarding the marketing and sale of its Oscillo Products?

b) Is the defendant liable to the class members for reimbursement of the purchase price of the Oscillo Products as a result of their misconduct?

c) Should an injunctive remedy be ordered to prohibit the defendant from continuing to perpetuate their unfair, false, misleading, and/or deceptive conduct?

d) Is the defendant responsible to pay compensatory and/or punitive damages to class members and in what amount? [ 2 ] The Application to Institute Proceedings was subsequently filed by Charles in the Superior Court. On November 17, 2017, Boiron moved in the Superior Court to strike some of the allegations as well as related exhibits. On May 18, 2018, Charles sought authorization from the Superior Court to produce five additional expert reports. [ 3 ] On September 6, 2018, the Honourable Suzanne Courchesne of the Superior Court allowed in part Boiron’s motion to strike.

In a separate judgment issued the same day, she also dismissed Charles’ motion to add five expert reports. [ 4 ] Charles now seeks leave to appeal both judgments. [ 5 ] The debate with respect to these judgments concerns the extent to which allegations and evidence related to (

a) alleged failures and deficiencies in Health Canada approvals of homeopathic products and (

b) with respect to the validity of homeopathic principles such as the “law of similar” or “like cures like”, are pertinent to the proceedings. [ 6 ] Justice Levesque noted the following with respect to these matters in the reasons for which the Court initially authorized the class action in Charles c. Boiron Canada inc. , 2016 QCCA 1716 : [44] Je suis d'avis, et cela dit avec le plus grand respect, que le juge de première instance, tout en exposant adéquatement les principes qu'il lui fallait appliquer au stade de la demande d’autorisation, s’en est clairement éloigné.

Il s’adonne à une étude au fond de la question en opposant les éléments de preuve déposés par l'appelante aux arguments de l’intimée, ainsi qu’en retenant que le processus d’approbation d’un produit homéopathique par Santé Canada est fiable. […] [47] En choisissant d’exclure de la preuve les éléments émanant des articles scientifiques déposés parce qu’ils visaient à discréditer l’homéopathie en général, et qu’en cela ils devenaient peu crédibles, le juge s’écarte carrément de son rôle et de l’approche large et libérale qu'il se devait de suivre. […]

[50] Il me faut conclure, respectueusement, que l’effet de l’approbation par Santé Canada de la qualité du produit homéopathique et que la valeur de l’opinion du D r Willis sont des questions qui relèvent du juge chargé d’entendre l'affaire à son mérite, à l'occasion d'un débat contradictoire où seront présentés tous les éléments de preuve de chaque partie. [ 7 ] In light of these reasons, Charles has satisfied me that leave to appeal should be granted and that all the criteria to do so are satisfied, be it under

article 31 or 32 of the Code of civil procedure , whichever is applicable in the present instance. I will refrain from detailing further the reasons, as is generally the rule in such circumstances where leave is granted.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] GRANTS leave to appeal the judgment dated September 6, 2018 of the Superior Court, allowing in part the motion to strike certain allegations and exhibits brought by Boiron Canada Inc; [ 9 ] GRANTS leave to appeal the other judgment dated September 6, 2018 rendered by the Superior Court dismissing Adanna Charles’ motion to add expert reports; [ 10 ] ORDERS that both appeals be consolidated so as to be heard at the same time and on the same record; [ 11 ] ORDERS that the consolidated appeals be heard by means of memoranda; [ 12 ] ORDERS the appellant Adanna Charles to file and notify a single memorandum for both consolidated appeals not exceeding 30 pages on or before March 15, 2019 ; [ 13 ] ORDERS the respondent Boiron Canada Inc.

Charles to file and notify a single memorandum for both consolidated appeals not exceeding 30 pages on or before May 3, 2019 ; [ 14 ] FURTHER ORDERS that the consolidated appeals be heard on June 14, 2019 in courtroom Pierre-Basile Mignault, for a total maximum hearing time of 120 minutes (60 minutes for each party). robert m. mainville, J.A.