Blakes Regulatory and Litigation & Dispute Resolution Groups discuss the implications of the CCPSA for manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers. Topics include:
An overview of the legislation
Incident reporting
Record-keeping
Recall obligations
Litigation risks, including class actions, confidentiality issues, danger to human health or safety, and the precautionary principle
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Consumer Product Safety Act, June 2011
1. Implications of the New Canada
Consumer Product Safety Act
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
MONTRÉAL OTTAWA TORONTO CALGARY VANCOUVER NEW YORK CHICAGO LONDON BAHRAIN AL-KHOBAR* BEIJING SHANGHAI* blakes.com
*Associated Office Blake,Cassels & Graydon LLP
2. Seminar Index
Implications of the New
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act
Wednesday, June 8th, 2011
TAB
Presentation Slides ...................................................... 1
• Overview: Canada Consumer Product Safety Act Laura Weinrib
• Incident Reporting under the CCPSA Alice Tseng
• Record Keeping under the CCPSA Laura Weinrib
• Recalls under the CCPSA: What’s So New About Recalls? Elizabeth McNaughton
• The Precautionary Principle and Enforcement under the Sharon Wong
CCPSA
• CCPSA and Class Action Risk Robin Linley
Speaker Profiles ........................................................... 2
5. Overview: Canada Consumer
Product Safety Act
Presented by: Laura Weinrib
Application
• Applies to “consumer products”
– applies to products, including components, parts or accessories
and packaging, that can be reasonably obtained by an individual
for non-commercial purposes (specifically includes domestic,
recreation and sports purposes)
• Exclusions
– excludes products currently regulated under certain specific
legislation (e.g., food, drugs, natural health products, medical
devices, cosmetics, pest control products, most vehicles, plants,
controlled substances)
Prohibitions
• Prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement or
sale of consumer products that pose a “danger to human health or
safety”
– “danger to human health or safety” is defined as “any unreasonable
hazard – existing or potential – that is posed by a consumer product
during or as a result of its normal or foreseeable use and that may
reasonably be expected to cause the death ... or have an adverse effect
on that individual’s health – including an injury... .”
• Prohibits packaging, labelling or advertising that is false, misleading
or deceptive, as it relates to health and safety
6. Record-Keeping and Testing
• Record-Keeping
– document preparation and maintenance requirements for all who
manufacture, import, advertise, sell or test consumer products
for commercial purposes, to facilitate product tracing
• Testing
– government can order commercial manufacturers and importers
to conduct consumer product safety tests/compile information
and provide the results
Incident Reporting and Recalls
• Incident Reporting
– requires manufacturers, importers and sellers to report within
2 days when they have knowledge of an “incident”
– “incident” defined to include a defect, recall,
erroneous/insufficient label information or occurrence that results
or could result in serious injury or death
• Mandatory Recalls
– Minister of Health given power to order mandatory recalls or
other corrective measures where the inspector reasonably
believes the product poses a danger to human health or safety
Inspection Powers
• Broad inspection powers under the Act for purpose of verifying
compliance and preventing non-compliance
• Health Canada inspectors may:
– enter a location in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that
activities related to consumer products take place (e.g. manufacturing,
importation, advertisement, packaging, storage, testing and sale)
– examine, test or take samples of anything found in the location
– open a receptacle or package found in the location
– examine a document and make a copy of it; take photographs
– seize and detain an article
– use local computers to examine documents
7. Offences, Fines and Penalties
• Offences
– it is an offence to contravene the Act, or any orders made or regulations
under the Act
• Fines and Penalties
– up to $5-million and/or 2 years imprisonment for most offences
– unlimited fines and/or up to 5 years imprisonment for certain offences or
for knowingly or recklessly contravening the Act, any regulations or an
inspector’s order
– if company commits offence, its directors, officers and agents who
directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced or participated in offence
could be a party to offence and convicted
Administrative Monetary Penalties
• The Act creates an Administrative Monetary Penalty
(AMP) scheme with a lower civil standard of proof for
contraventions of recall or other orders
• Maximum $25,000 penalty per violation
• An alternative to criminal prosecution
What the Future Holds
• In force June 20, 2011
• Regulations and guidelines to flesh out specifics and
processes?
• Exemptions for certain activities?
• Will significantly alter the regulatory landscape for
anyone that manufactures, imports, packages,
advertises or sells consumer products in Canada where
those products are not exempt from the legislation
8. Incident Reporting
under the CCPSA
Presented by: Alice Tseng
Mandatory Reporting Requirement
• What is a reportable incident?
• When must it be reported?
Definition of “Incident”
1. An occurrence in Canada or elsewhere that resulted or may reasonably
have been expected to result in an individual’s death or in serious adverse
effects on their health, including a serious injury
2. A defect or characteristic that may reasonably be expected to result in an
individual’s death or in serious adverse effects on their health, including a
serious injury
3. Incorrect or insufficient labelling information or instructions that may
reasonably be expected to result in an individual’s death or in serious
adverse effects on their health, including a serious injury, or
4. A recall or measure initiated for human health or safety reasons by:
– a foreign entity
– a provincial government
– a public body established under provincial legislation
– an aboriginal government
– an institution of any of the above
9. Reportable?
• Is the event “related” to a “consumer product” that you
manufacture, import or sell in Canada?
• Does the event meet the definition of an “incident”?
• Does the event relate to the normal or foreseeable use
or misuse of the product?
Timelines
• Two days
– manufacturer, importer or seller
– file incident report
• Ten days
– manufacturer or importer
– file written report
Written Report (10 Days)
• Shall contain information about:
– the incident
– the product involved in the incident
– any products they manufacture or import that to their
knowledge could be involved in a similar incident
– any measures taken or proposed to be taken with
respect to those products
10. Confidential Business Information
CCPSA permits disclosure under two circumstances:
1. disclosure is to a person/government carrying out functions relating
to protecting human health or safety or the environment
2. disclosure is essential to address a serious and imminent danger to
human health or safety or the environment
Confidential Business Information (cont’d)
• Access to Information Act still applies
• Test for keeping information confidential is
different than under CCPSA
Tips for Compliance
• Ensure processes are in place to ensure appropriate
flow of information within organization about events
• Take the time to determine whether an incident is
reportable, but be diligent in making this determination
• Timelines commence after an incident is determined to
be reportable
• Consider designating a “Chief Product Safety Officer”
• When filing reports, mark as “confidential”, avoid
submitting personal information and draft carefully (e.g.,
include facts, not opinion)
11. Record-Keeping under the
CCPSA
Presented by: Laura Weinrib
General Record-Keeping Requirements
• Any person who manufacturers, imports, advertises,
sells or tests a consumer product for commercial
purposes must prepare and maintain certain documents
• Purpose is to improve the traceability of non-compliant
products in the event a danger must be addressed
• A Health Canada inspector can request access to
documents that are required to be maintained
Record-Keeping Responsibilities
• Retailer responsibilities
– record name and address of person from whom consumer product was
obtained
– record location(s) where product was sold and the time period when it
was sold
– no requirement to keep documents of consumer transactions or
personal information
• Manufacturer, importer, advertiser, seller (other than retailer) and
tester responsibilities
– record name and address of any person from whom consumer product
was obtained or to whom they sold, or both, as applicable
12. Time and Manner of Record-Keeping
• Records must be retained for six years after the end of
the year to which they relate (unless a different time is
specified by regulation)
• Relevant persons must keep records at their place of
business in Canada
• Minister of Health may exempt a person from the
requirement to keep records in Canada if minister
considers the requirement unnecessary or impractical
Exemptions?
• In fall 2010, Health Canada conducted a consultation on proposed
exemption regulations, which would exempt the recipient of a
consumer product where:
1. the consumer product is donated (i.e., given for no consideration)
2. the donation is from a person other than a manufacturer, importer,
distributor or retailer
• If an item is being donated by a manufacturer, importer, distributor
or retailer, the exemption would not apply
• More consultations planned for this year
Additional Documentation
Requirements
• Many regulations are being transferred from the
Hazardous Products Act to the CCPSA
– some of these regulations have additional record-
keeping requirements that will continue to apply
– these requirements have their own timelines
13. Recalls under the CCPSA:
What’s So New About
Recalls?
Presented by: Elizabeth McNaughton
Recalls Pre-June 20, 2011
• “Voluntary” recall
• Mandatory recall for food
• Mandatory reporting example
• Why a mandatory recall power?
Recalls as of June 20
• Mandatory recall order
– danger to human health or safety
• unreasonable hazard
• hazard existing or potential
• normal or foreseeable use of product
• causing death or adverse effect on health including injury
• acute or chronic adverse effect
• short or long term
– order to state reasons, time and manner of recall
– order manufacturer, importer, vendor
– HC can recall if you don’t and at your expense
14. Corrective Measures Order
• Who? Manufacturer, importer, advertiser or seller
• Why? Failure to comply with order to test; failure to
recall; product subject to voluntary recall; contravention
of the Act
• What? Stop manufacture, importation, etc.; “any
measure” necessary for product to comply with Act or
prevent danger to human health or safety
• What else? HC can take corrective measures at your
expense
Can an Order Be Reviewed?
• Request in writing
• Short time frame to request – max. 7 days
• Order remains in force unless review officer
suspends
• Order – confirmed, amended, terminated or
cancelled
Recall Readiness
• Recall plan
– prepare plan - SOPs
– review and update
– recall team
– training
– conduct mock recall
• Ensure senior management support for program
• Review and update supply agreements
15. The Precautionary Principle
and Enforcement under the CCPSA
Presented by: Sharon Wong
What Is the Precautionary Principle?
• Main concept:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to
human health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause
and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically.” (The Wingspread Consensus Statement on the
Precautionary Principle)
When Must Precautionary Measures
Be Taken?
• Factors to be considered:
– possibility, plausibility or probability
– considering costs and benefits
– Risk = Probability x Damage
16. Precautionary Principle Accepted as an
Aid to Statutory Interpretation
• Supreme Court decision in Spray-Tech v.
Hudson (2001)
– court had to interpret whether power to pass
by-laws ‘to secure health and general welfare
in the municipality’ gave Town the power to
restrict pesticide use within the Town
Spray-Tech v. Hudson (cont’d)
• Court upheld Town’s right to pass the by-law, in
part based on the Precautionary Principle – “the
Town's concerns about pesticides fit well under
their rubric of preventive action”
• Precautionary Principle accepted as an aid to
statutory interpretation
Precautionary Principle Intended to
Apply to the CCPSA
• Preamble to the CCPSA:
“Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes
that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be
used as a reason for postponing measures that
prevent adverse effects on human health if those
effects could be serious or irreversible;”
17. Precautionary Principle Intended to
Apply to the CCPSA (cont’d)
• Definition of “danger to human health or safety”
includes any unreasonable hazard – existing or
potential – posed by a consumer product as a
result of its normal or foreseeable use that may
reasonably be expected to have an adverse
effect on an individual’s health
How the Principle Could Be
Applied Under CCPSA
1. A recall could be ordered if there is only a
potential to cause harm even if there is no
scientific certainty the harm will occur
• A Recall Order can be reviewed by a Review
Officer, who will decide based on his or her
own assessment of the risk
• The Recall Order continues in effect during the
review unless the Review Officer decides
otherwise – better safe than sorry
How the Principle Could Be
Applied Under CCPSA (cont’d)
• Possibility of judicial review by the Federal
Court, but court would likely show great
deference to Minister based on the
Precautionary Principle, i.e., the Spray-Tech v.
Hudson decision
18. How the Principle could be
Applied under CCPSA (cont’d)
2) Criminal offence for a person to advertise or
sell a consumer product that they know is a
“danger to human health or safety”
– requirement for Crown to prove “knowledge” may be
lessened; could be convicted if the accused knew
there was a potential to cause harm
What Does This Mean for You?
• By expressly including the Precautionary
Principle, the CCPSA increases the pressure on
industry to be alert for possible dangers and to
voluntarily take precautionary measures, even if
there is no certainty that the product will cause
harm. By being proactive, industry can reduce
the likelihood of government imposing a solution
by regulation or recall.
19. CCPSA and Class Action Risk
Presented by: Robin Linley
Class Action Landscape
• Product liability claims seen as the
“quintessential” case for class treatment
• Low threshold for certification
• Frequently follow a recall
• However, not all product liability cases will lend
themselves to certification - Ernewein v. General
Motors of Canada Ltd. [2005] B.C.C.A.
Potential Class Action Drivers
under the CCPSA
• New recall powers (CCPSA, s. 31)
• New mandatory reporting obligations
• Increased pressure to take corrective action
20. No Statutory Civil Cause of Action
• The Act does not create an independent civil
cause of action for breach
• However, proof of breach of statute that has
caused damage may be evidence of negligence
(Saskatchewan Wheat Pool)
• Failure to comply with the Act is likely to be used
by the plaintiffs’ bar as evidence of breach of the
duty and standard of care
Waiver of Tort
• Disgorgement remedy focused on the
defendant’s gains as opposed to plaintiff’s loss
(i.e., profits or net revenue)
• May exist as an independent cause of action
• Waiver of tort is said to offer the advantage that
the plaintiff does not need to prove loss
Waiver of Tort (cont’d)
• Is breach of statute sufficient to support an
independent cause of action based in
restitution?
21. Waiver of Tort (cont’d)
• “…[R]ecognition of an independent cause of
action in waiver of tort would represent a sea-
change in the realm of private law. The
justiciability of such a cause of action would
depend, in large measure, on the creation of
entire categories of civil wrongdoing heretofore
unknown to law.”
Mitigation Strategies
• Review information-gathering processes
• Review internal communication processes
– report handling
– staff training
– central point of contact
• Product tracking, registration and recall plans
Mitigation Strategies (cont’d)
• Review of existing labels and product literature
for compliance with the Act
• Distribution agreements – How have the risks
and costs of a recall been allocated?
• Consider a progressive PR strategy
• ADR procedures
• Insurance
23. Laura Weinrib
Associate, Toronto Office
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Direct 416-863-2765
Facsimile 416-863-2653
laura.weinrib@blakes.com
Profile
Laura Weinrib is an Associate practising with the Intellectual Property Group. Her practice emphasizes
pharmaceutical, medical device, natural health product, food and consumer product law, and the
marketing and advertising of these products. Laura has advised clients on such matters as drug, medical
device, natural health product, consumer product and food labelling, and other regulatory issues arising
under Canadian legislation, including licensing and product safety issues. She has also provided advice
regarding clinical trial agreements, contract research organization agreements, promotional programs,
advertising, product claims, the purchase and sale of pharmacies, hospital supply agreements, and
consulting and advisory board agreements.
Laura also practises in the area of trade-mark prosecution and opposition.
Laura was recently seconded on a part-time time basis to the Canadian offices of a major pharmaceutical
company where she provided a broad range of legal services as in-house counsel. She has also spent
time working in the Firm's corporate practice, where she assisted with a full range of corporate matters.
Laura is a graduate of the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. Prior to law school, she received
her master of science from the Department of Medical Biophysics, division of experimental therapeutics,
at the University of Toronto. While completing her degree, she conducted research and published articles
in the field of gene therapy. Laura also received her bachelor of science from McGill University, where
she majored in microbiology and immunology.
Education
Registered Trade-Mark Agent, Canada - 2010
Admitted to the Ontario Bar - 2004
J.D., University of Toronto - 2003
M.Sc., University of Toronto - 2000
B.Sc., McGill University - 1998
24. Alice Tseng
Partner, Toronto Office
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Direct 416-863-3067
Facsimile 416-863-2653
alice.tseng@blakes.com
Profile
Alice Tseng is a Partner in the Intellectual Property Group. She graduated from the Faculty of Pharmacy
and the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto and is a licensed pharmacist, lawyer and patent
agent.
Alice’s practice consists primarily of advising companies in the pharmaceutical, medical device and
natural health product industries. She advises these clients on a diverse range of matters, including
pricing and reimbursement (e.g., rebate and pricing restrictions, formulary listing agreements,
agreements with hospital buying groups); regulatory matters relating to safety (e.g., recalls, health
professional communications, public advisories) or licensing (e.g. of products or establishments); health-
care compliance (e.g., Rx&D, PAAB and MEDEC codes of conduct); advertising and marketing programs
and trade disputes; public relations activities (e.g., communications to the media); access to information
matters (e.g., submissions in response to access to information requests, access to information
litigation); the sale of drugs through Internet pharmacies; and the purchase and sale of pharmacies.
Alice is recognized as a highly recommended lawyer in the area of Life Sciences Regulatory by PLC Which
Lawyer? 2010.
Alice also advises clients in a variety of industries, especially the food industry, on advertising and
marketing issues generally.
Education
Admitted to Ontario Bar - 1998
LL.B., University of Toronto - 1996
B.Sc.Phm. (Pharmacy), University of Toronto - 1993
25. Elizabeth L. McNaughton
Partner, Toronto Office
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Direct 416-863-2556
Facsimile 416-863-2653
elizabeth.mcnaughton@blakes.com
Profile
Elizabeth McNaughton is a Partner in the Intellectual Property Group. She is involved in all aspects of
Canadian law affecting food, drug, cosmetic and medical device law; advertising and marketing,
including product claims and labelling; privacy; and trade practices. Elizabeth's practice emphasizes
assisting corporations involved in the marketing of goods and services to comply with Canadian legal
requirements. Elizabeth advises major multi-national organizations on compliance with Canadian privacy
requirements and has been involved in helping to structure major Canadian promotions of goods and
services.
Elizabeth is recognized in The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory, The 2011 Lexpert/American Lawyer
Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada, PLC Cross-border Life Sciences Handbook 2010 and Law
Business Research's The International Who's Who of Life Sciences Lawyers 2011. In The Best Lawyers in
Canada 2011, she was voted by peers as one of the leading advertising and marketing lawyers in
Canada. Elizabeth is also recognized in the life sciences-regulatory area as a highly recommended
individual, and Blakes as a highly recommended firm, in PLC Which Lawyer? 2010.
Elizabeth is a past chair of the Canadian Bar Association's Marketing Practices Committee and a past
member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Food and Drug Law Journal.
Elizabeth has written extensively on a wide range of marketing and advertising law topics and has
spoken on such topics at seminars in Canada and the United States. Elizabeth is a member of Canadian
and United States professional organizations in the promotion law and intellectual property law areas and
has served on committees of such organizations.
Education
Registered Trade-Mark Agent, Canada - 1980
Admitted to the Ontario Bar - 1972
LL.B., University of Toronto - 1970
B.A. (Hon.), Queen's University - 1967
26. Sharon Wong
Partner, Toronto Office
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Direct 416-863-4178
Facsimile 416-863-2653
sharon.wong@blakes.com
Profile
Sharon Wong is a Partner practising commercial litigation and regulatory law with an emphasis on energy
regulation. She has represented a broad range of clients in respect of a variety of commercial disputes,
including product liability, breach of contract claims, construction claims, negligence and shareholder
matters. She has also acted in a number of administrative law and regulatory matters, principally before
the Ontario Energy Board (OEB).
In recent years, Sharon's list of clients has included EPCOR Utilities, Capital Power Corporation, Spectra
Energy/Union Gas, RBC Energy Services, Imperial Oil, UBS Energy Commodities, Cinergy Solutions,
TransAlta Energy, BP Canada Energy, Canadian Hydro Developers, Greater Toronto Airports Authority,
Canada Lands Corporation, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, and Nestlé
Canada.
Sharon was a part-time instructor for two years for the trial advocacy course at Osgoode Hall Law School
- York University, and has been an instructor on several occasions in the intensive trial advocacy
program for lawyers and at Osgoode Hall Law School professional development programs.
Sharon has appeared as trial and appellate counsel before all levels of courts in Ontario and before
various federal courts and tribunals. In addition to representing her clients' interests in court, Sharon
also works closely with her clients to develop practical and cost-effective solutions to their problems,
including through mediation and arbitration.
Representative Matters
Representing Union Gas and Dawn Gateway Pipeline Limited Partnership at the OEB in regulatory
proceedings related to the development of the Dawn Gateway Pipeline, in which the OEB granted a
new form of complaints-based, lighthanded regulation, never before used in Ontario; also
representing Union Gas in the Natural Gas Electricity Interface Review proceeding in which the
OEB decided to refrain from regulating a large portion of Union's natural gas storage business, and
also acting for Union in subsequent OEB proceedings relating to the allocation of natural gas
storage capacity in Ontario
Provided regulatory advice to EPCOR Utilities Inc. and Capital Power Corporation in respect to
Capital Power's C$500-million initial public offering of its common shares. Capital Power was
established by EPCOR Utilities Inc. to hold its power generation assets and to access additional
capital necessary for its growth to become a leading North American independent power producer
Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation (successfully obtained leave from the OEB in two
proceedings for the construction of electricity transmission lines and also to expropriate land to
build the transmission line)
UBS Commodities Canada Ltd. v. Ontario Electricity Financial Corp. (successfully represented UBS
in a C$4-million breach of contract claim against the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation
27. relating to a contract to administer approximately 90 electricity power purchase contracts and to
manage the resale of that electricity into Ontario's electricity market)
Provided regulatory advice in respect of a competitive bid to acquire multiple hydroelectric
generating facilities in Ontario
Represented a major Canadian electricity trader in a dispute with Ontario's Independent Electricity
System Operator (IESO) over settlement credits
Represented a distributor of barbeque grills in respect of a safety recall, liaising with Health
Canada and advising on liability issues, and representing them in arbitration proceedings against
the overseas fabricator of the grills
City of Kingston v. Ontario Energy Board (acting for Union Gas in respect of a dispute relating to a
municipal franchise agreement to operate gas pipelines in the city of Kingston, initially before the
OEB, then on appeal to the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal)
City of Sudbury v. Union Gas (acting for Union Gas in respect of the interpretation of municipal
franchise agreement, before the Ontario Superior Court and then on appeal to the Ontario Court of
Appeal)
Octagon Capital Corporation (securities regulation, disciplinary matter before Investment Dealers
Association)
V Limited v. Former Shareholders of RT (successfully recovered over C$2-million in a private
arbitration proceeding against former shareholders based on breach of representations and
warranties in a share purchase agreement)
Heritage Education Funds Inc. v. Canadian Property Holdings Inc. (interpretation of a lease
agreement before the Ontario Superior Court)
Stork Werkspoor Canada Limited v. Canadian Blower/Canada Pumps Limited, and others (product
liability case in respect of cooling coils installed on Canadian Naval Frigates)
Inco Limited v. Howden Group Canada Limited and Hatch Associates Ltd. (product liability case in
respect of equipment manufactured for Inco.)
Ahmadiyaa Abode of Peace v. Essroc Canada Inc., and others (construction litigation in respect of
an high-rise apartment building)
Innvest Real Estate Investment Trust v. J. Stuart Hall & Associates, Grant Morden, and others
(construction litigation relating to a hotel property in Ottawa)
Meade v. Caspian Investments Resources Ltd. (stock options, injunctions and breach of contract)
Tigney Technology Inc. v. Swedish Tobacco Co. (arbitration under the International Commercial
Arbitration Act, subsequently appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal)
Apotex Inc. v. Plantex USA Inc. (breach of contract claim in the Ontario Superior Court)
Tecumseh Fuels v. Imperial Oil (breach of contract claim in the Ontario Superior Court)
1547107 Ontario Inc. v. Imperial Oil (breach of contract, injunctions)
28. Zander v. Imperial Oil (negligence claim with allegations relating to a defective mechanical door)
Footitt v. Gleason (oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act)
Nestlé Canada Inc. v. Borgh Dairy (breach of contract under a distributors agreement)
Education
Admitted to the Ontario Bar - 1988
LL.B., University of Toronto - 1986
29. Robin Linley
Partner, Toronto Office
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Direct 416-863-3047
Facsimile 416-863-2653
robin.linley@blakes.com
Profile
Robin Linley is a litigation Partner. He has a broad commercial litigation practice that includes an
emphasis on product liability law, class actions and aboriginal law.
In the area of product liability law, Robin has acted for manufacturers in the defence of serious personal
injury cases involving allegations of failure to warn, negligent design, manufacture and testing of medical
devices, pharmaceutical products, as well as automotive and consumer goods. Robin also provides
proactive advice to manufacturers and others in the distributor chain on product warnings and recalls. He
is actively involved in the Firm's class action practice and is currently involved in the defence of a
number of high-profile class actions in this area.
Robin's commercial practice includes representing both plaintiffs and defendants in disputes involving a
wide variety of areas, including breach of restrictive covenants, breach of warranty, professional
negligence and breach of commercial contracts generally.
In the area of aboriginal law, Robin represents and advises both First Nations and non-First Nations
clients in cases related to the "duty to consult."
Robin speaks at conferences and writes regularly on topics germane to his areas of practice. He is a
member of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Defence Lawyers Association and the Defence
Research Institute. He is a former member of the Adjunct Faculty at Osgoode Law School, where he
taught an upper-year course in contract remedies. A member of the Firm's Pro Bono Committee, Robin is
a firm believer in the positive benefits that pro bono work can generate for those involved in it.
Prior to joining Blakes, Robin received a B.C.L. degree from Oxford University in England, where he
studied law as a British Chevening Scholar.
Reported Cases
Boulanger v. Johnson & Johnson [2007] O.J. No. 179 (S.C.J.) (QL)
SimEx Inc. v. IMAX Corp., [2005] O.J. No. 817 (S.C.J.) (QL)
BNY Capital Corp. v. Katotakis, [2005] O.J. No. 813 (S.C.J.); aff'd O.J. No. 640 (C.A.) (QL)
Education
Admitted to the Ontario Bar - 2002
B.C.L., Oxford University - 2002
LL.B., Dalhousie University - 2000
B.A. (Hon.), Queen's University - 1996