Lexpert magazine features articles and columns on developments in legal practice management, deals and lawsuits of interest in Canada, the law and business issues of interest to legal professionals and businesses that purchase legal services.
Issue link: https://digital.carswellmedia.com/i/1541334
26 www.lexpert.ca Top 10 Business Decisions PRICE V. SMITH & WESSON CORPORATION, 2025 ONCA 452 • Samantha Price, Skye McLeod, Kenneth Price, Claire Smith, Patrick McLeod, and Jane McLeod > Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, Gowling WLG, Michel Drapeau Law Office > Linda Rothstein, Odette Soriano, Paul Davis, Malcolm N. Ruby, Adam Bazak, Michel W. Drapeau, and Joshua Juneau • Smith & Wesson Corp. > McMillan LLP > Scott Maidment, Jennifer Dent, Francesca D'Aquila-Kelly, and Emily Hush CLIENTS > FIRMS > LAWYERS IN THE wake of the July 2018 Danforth Avenue shooting in Toronto, victims and their families commenced a class action against Smith & Wesson Corporation, alleging the company's negligence for failing to incorporate authorized-user technology in its handguns. The Ontario Court of Appeal has now certified the action, allowing it to proceed as a class proceeding based on negligence while dismissing claims in strict liability and public nuisance. The case stems from an incident where Faisal Hussain shot 15 people using a stolen M&P 40 handgun manufac- tured by Smith & Wesson, killing two and injuring 13 others. The victims allege that had the manufacturer imple- mented authorized-user technology, Hussain would not have been able to use the weapon. Odette Soriano of Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, a law firm involved in the case, stated: "The Court of Appeal for Ontario certified this claim in negligence, giving the victims of the Danforth Shooting their day in court." She noted that this decision reiterates that certi- fication is not a merits-based test, citing this passage from the judgment: "It is unfair to impose a higher evidentiary burden on a plaintiff than the Class Proceedings Act requires. Motion judges and defence counsel should resist the temptation to jump to a substantive determination on the merits without a complete evidentiary record." The court found reasonable foresee- ability that stolen firearms would be used to harm others, establishing proximity between the manufacturer and victims. Evidence showed Smith & Wesson had agreed in 2000 with the United States government to implement authorized-user technology and obtained relevant patents yet continued manufacturing weapons without such safeguards after federal legislation in 2005 largely immunized gun manufacturers from civil liability.