Successful Tobacco Litigation in Quebec: Why Hold Cigarettes to a Higher Standard than Pharmaceutical Products?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper outlines how the judgment in Létourneau c JTI Macdonald Corp, 2015 QCCS 2382, can be applied to a class action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of the smoking cessation drug Champix. In Létourneau, three tobacco companies were liable for failing to warn consumers of the health and addictive risks of cigarettes. Pfizer launched Champix in Canada in 2007 and, by 2010, had updated its product monograph four times. The fourth iteration included a black box warning about adverse psychiatric side effects. Three principles underscoring Létourneau are especially useful for a Champix class action: the recognition of nicotine addiction as a legitimate illness; the enhanced standard of care owed to sufferers; and a flexible interpretation of breach of standard of care and causation, which is possible without loosening evidentiary rules of the common law tradition. Using Lara Khoury's “flexible procedural and substantive approach,” class members can adduce sociological evidence to prove that, from 2007 to 2010, Pfizer knew about psychiatric side effects and thus breached its duty to warn. Plaintiffs can use the “material contribution to risk” test from Clements to establish general causation and the “but for” test to establish specific causation. Plaintiffs with a history of mental illness can then surpass the “ordinary fortitude” requirement from Mustapha that would otherwise bar recovery. This paper concludes that the common law is well-suited to hold Pfizer accountable for marketing an unsafe product to the same group of consumers for which Létourneau created an enhanced standard of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".