ARTICLE
13 October 2025

British Columbia Introduces Vaping Cost Recovery Legislation (Bill 24)

MT
McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Contributor

McCarthy Tétrault LLP provides a broad range of legal services, advising on large and complex assignments for Canadian and international interests. The firm has substantial presence in Canada’s major commercial centres and in New York City, US and London, UK.
British Columbia has introduced new cost recovery legislation: Bill 24, the Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (the "Vaping Cost Recovery Act").
Canada British Columbia Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Michael A. Feder’s articles from McCarthy Tétrault LLP are most popular:
  • within Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Healthcare and Law Firm industries

British Columbia has introduced new cost recovery legislation: Bill 24, the Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act (the "Vaping Cost Recovery Act"). This is British Columbia's first cost recovery legislation since British Columbia introduced but did not enact Bill 12 (the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act) in early 2024.

The Vaping Cost Recovery Act is modeled on—and closer to—legislation targeting tobacco and opioid products than Bill 12, but still includes some of Bill 12's more expansive additions that benefit the government. Thus, the Vaping Cost Recovery Act is another expansion of cost recovery legislation in British Columbia. Further, in introducing the legislation, British Columbia's Attorney General has indicated that similar legislation could be forthcoming to target other products.

Modelled on tobacco and opioid legislation

The Vaping Cost Recovery Act applies to "specified substances" and "specified devices". Those terms are defined broadly and will almost certainly be further defined by regulation. Specified substances must (a) contain nicotine and (b) be used or intended to be used in a specified device. In turn, a specified device is a device that (a) renders a specified substance in the form of an aerosol and (b) is brought to the mouth for the purpose of inhaling the aerosol. Those definitions are broad enough to capture most vaping products. The draft legislation also suggests it will apply to nicotine pouches, but cannabis devices and accessories would be excluded.

The Vaping Cost Recovery Act is based on cost recovery legislation that applies to tobacco and opioid products. It retains the key features of those statutes, including the following:

  1. A direct cause of action for the government: The government can sue vaping product manufacturers and wholesalers, plus their consultants, to recover health care costs caused or contributed to by a breach of a common law, equitable, or statutory duty or obligation owed to persons in the province.
  2. Presumptions favoring government: Once the government proves a breach of duty, it benefits from several presumptions related to causation and damages. For example, the court must presume that (a) people exposed to vaping products would not have been exposed but for the breach of duty and (b) if exposure can cause disease, it did cause disease or the risk of it in some people who were exposed.
  3. Aggregate claims: The government's direct cause of action allows it to recover health care costs on an aggregate basis (e.g., for all persons in the province exposed to vaping products). Statistical information is admissible to quantify the government's aggregate health care costs.
  4. Discovery blocking: Health care records and documents of particular benefit recipients are not compellable unless a rule related to expert witnesses requires their production. Otherwise, defendants may obtain only a statistically meaningful sample of records.
  5. Parent liability: A parent company (or other person) that acts in concert with a Canadian company that breaches a duty is jointly and severally liable for the health care costs resulting from that breach.
  6. Retroactive effect: The government may sue for a historical breach of duty—the legislation reset the running of limitation periods at the time of its enactment.
  7. Government class actions: British Columbia's government may bring a class action on behalf of other Canadian governments.
  8. Officer and director liability: A director or officer who directs, authorizes, assents to, acquiesces in, or participates in a company's breach of duty is jointly and severally liable with the company unless they exercised reasonable diligence.

More advantages for government

The Vaping Cost Recovery Act goes even further than the tobacco and opioid statutes now in force by granting the government additional powers and litigation advantages:

  1. Potential risk-based claims: The Vaping Cost Recovery Act does not contain Bill 12's presumptions related to risk-based claims. However, it expands the definition of "disease injury, or illness"—used to determine the scope of the government's claim—to include "the risk of disease, injury or illness". It is not clear how the government will rely on that part of the definition.
  2. Liability allocation not limited to market share: While the tobacco and opioid acts primarily allocate liability among defendants by market share, the Vaping Cost Recovery Act focuses on each defendant's "contribution to disease, injury or illness" and allows the court to consider factors other than market share in that analysis.
  3. Government can certify its costs: The Vaping Cost Recovery Act allows the government to provide two kinds of certificates that may help it quantify its claim. First, the government may certify the benefits it provided to people. That kind of certificate is proof of those benefits. Second, the government may certify the costs of the benefits it provided. That kind of certificate is conclusive proof of those costs.
  4. Settlements irrelevant: The Vaping Control Act provides that a settlement between a manufacturer, wholesaler, or consultant and the government or a benefit recipient is not a defence to a claim under the act.
  5. Statistics to establish liability: The tobacco and opioid statutes allow the government to use statistical evidence to prove causation. The Vaping Control Act goes further by allowing the government to use the statistical evidence to prove liability.

The Vaping Cost Recovery Act will likely be enacted this fall. It remains unclear when British Columbia will file a lawsuit related to the Act. All other provinces ultimately followed British Columbia's lead in tobacco and opioid cost recovery legislation; it is unclear if they will do so again here for vaping cost recovery legislation, but that seems a likely outcome.

To view the original article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More