 |
 |
 |
January 20, 2012 - VIOXX® Canada-wide settlement reached in Vioxx class actions
|
|
 |
|
March 16, 2011 - VIOXX® For the most recent news regarding this class action, please go to www.vioxxclassaction.ca.
|
|
|
|
February 12, 2010 - VIOXX® Ontario court approves Notice of Certification
|
|
|
|
December 15, 2009 - VIOXX® Ontario court refuses leave to appeal from certification
|
|
|
|
October 22, 2009 - VIOXX® Supreme Court of Canada refuses leave to appeal
|
|
|
|
July 31, 2009 - VIOXX® Ontario Court of Appeal Denies Merck Leave to Appeal; Merck Seeks to Reopen Certification
|
|
|
|
February 20, 2009 - VIOXX® Divisional Court Dismisses Merck's Appeal
|
|
|
|
January 26, 2009 - VIOXX® Merck's Appeal to the Divisional Court
|
|
|
|
July 30, 2008 - VIOXX® Ontario court certifies national class action
|
|
|
|
June 13, 2008 - VIOXX® Certification hearing in Ontario and Saskatchewan proceedings
|
|
|
|
November 9, 2007 - VIOXX® U.S. Settlement
|
|
|
|
October 2, 2007 - VIOXX® Class Action Certification Hearing Rescheduled
|
|
|
|
June 6, 2007 - VIOXX® Class Action Certification Hearing
|
|
|
|
May 3, 2006 - VIOXX® Amended Fresh Statement of
Claim Filed
|
|
|
|
February 6, 2006 - VIOXX® Press Release
|
|
|
|
February 3, 2006 - Decision on Carriage of VIOXX®
Class Action in Ontario
|
|
|
|
August 22, 2005 - VIOXX® class action update
|
|
|
|
Tough and Podrebarac LLP launches VIOXX® class action
|
|
|
|
|
ONTARIO COURT REFUSES LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CERTIFICATION
On December 7, 2009, Justice Bellamy refused to grant Merck leave to appeal from the order of Justice Cullity certifying this action as a class action. This was Merck's second unsuccessful attempt at seeking leave to appeal. Usually a party will only have one opportunity to seek leave to appeal. However, Merck argued that the circumstances in this case warranted a reconsideration of Justice Bellamy's earlier decision refusing leave to appeal. In particular, Merck relied on a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in March 2009 that overturned certification in a separate Vioxx class action in Saskatchewan. Merck argued that the Saskatchewan decision, had it been available when Justice Bellamy first considered its leave to appeal application, may have made a different decision. Justice Bellamy agreed to reconsider whether Merck should be granted leave to appeal in light of the decision in Saskatchewan. After reviewing that decision, Her Honour confirmed that there was no basis to send the certification decision to the Ontario Divisional Court for further review. Her Honour refused leave to appeal. Justice Bellamy found that the Saskatchewan action and the Ontario action are "radically different".
This latest decision means that Merck has exhausted every opportunity to set aside the certification of this case as a class action on behalf of the following persons:
All persons in Canada, including their estates, other than residents of Quebec and Saskatchewan, who were prescribed and ingested Vioxx; and
All persons who by reason of his or her relationship to a member of the Class are entitled to make claims under any of the Dependants Statutes as a result of the death or personal injury of such member of the Class. The Dependent Statutes means the Family Law Act (Ontario), Family Compensation Act (B.C.), Fatal Accidents Act (Alberta), Tort-Feasors Act (Alberta), Fatal Accidents Act (Manitoba), Fatal Accidents Act (New Brunswick), Fatal Accidents Act (Newfoundland), Fatal Injuries Act (Nova Scotia), Fatal Accidents Act (Northwest Territories), Fatal Accidents Act (P.E.I.) and Fatal Accidents Act (Yukon).
We intend to push this litigation forward and fully prosecute this class action.
----------------------------------------
TOUGH & PODREBARAC LLP
Suite 300, 166 Pearl Street
Toronto, ON Canada M5H 1L3
Tel: 416.348.7500 - Fax: 416.348.7505 |
|
