ABSTRACT
In 2018, the British Columbia (BC) Government enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (ORA) in response to the overdose crisis. The ORA authorizes the province to recover health care costs from opioid manufacturers, distributors, and consultants alleged to have caused or contributed to opioid-related injury and illness. The ORA is modelled on BC’s Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (TRA), which the Supreme Court of Canada upheld as constitutional and was subsequently adopted across Canada to facilitate government cost-recovery actions against tobacco companies. This paper examines the objective underlying opioid health care cost recovery litigation and whether such actions pursue broader societal objectives beyond cost recoupment. It analyzes opioid and tobacco recovery litigation through four core functions of tort law: compensation, deterrence, the ombudsperson function, and public education. While these actions may fall short of traditional compensatory and deterrent goals, this paper argues that tort litigation can nonetheless serve important public health functions by shaping policy responses and educating the public about product-related harms. Finally, it highlights key differences between tobacco and opioid products that should inform litigation strategies and cautions that government-led litigation must be sustainable to avoid unintended economic and social consequences.
Christine Yang, Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: ‘Reading’ BC Tobacco and Opioid Class Actions Through Tort Law Theory” (2026) 35:1 Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 35.
Leave a Reply