By Kiana Therrien-Tomas
Supervised by Jessica DiFederico
Introduction
In Price v. Smith & Wesson Corporation[1] (“Price”), the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the scope of tort liability in the context of firearm manufacturers and class actions. The case arose from the tragic 2018 Danforth shooting and considered whether a manufacturer could be held liable in negligence for failing to incorporate safety technology that might have prevented a criminal act. The Court’s decision is significant for its clarification of the duty of care analysis in product liability cases and the certification threshold under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA).
Factual Background
On July 22, 2018, F.H. used a stolen Smith & Wesson handgun to shoot fifteen people on Danforth Avenue in Toronto. In 2019, the victims and their families brought a class action against Smith & Wesson. The plaintiffs alleged that Smith & Wesson was negligent for failing to include authorized user technology in its firearms, as required by an agreement with the United States government. Under that agreement, Smith & Wesson had committed to incorporating authorized user technology in newly designed handguns by March 2003, which would have rendered the firearms unusable by unauthorized individuals.[2] The plaintiffs also advanced claims in strict liability and public nuisance.
The motion judge bifurcated the certification motion. At the first phase, Smith & Wesson moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The motion judge struck the strict liability and public nuisance claims but allowed the negligence claim to proceed. [3] At the second phase, the judge declined to certify the action under the CPA, holding that the plaintiffs had not met the “common issues” requirement in s. 5(1)(c).[4] Both sides appealed.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s finding that the plaintiff’s negligence claim disclosed an arguable cause of action and to strike the claims for strict liability and public nuisance. However, the Court found that the plaintiff’s negligence claim met the cause of action criterion for certification.
Negligence Claim Survives Rule 21 Motion
The Court upheld the motion judge’s decision that the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. Applying the Anns/Cooper framework, the Court held that physical harm to victims of stolen firearms was reasonably foreseeable,[5] that a sufficient relationship of proximity existed between Smith & Wesson and the eventual victims,[6] and that there was no overarching policy reason that barred the imposition of a duty of care.[7]
The Court emphasized that at the pleadings stage, a claim should only be struck if it is “plain and obvious” it cannot succeed. Pleadings are to be read generously, especially on a Rule 21 motion.[8]
The negligence claim was also properly situated within recognized categories of negligence, including goods that are dangerous per se and product liability. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rankin’s Garage & Sales v. J.J.,[9] the Court held that the foreseeability of harm flowing from a stolen, unsecured or unsafe product was sufficient to ground a duty of care.[10]
The Court affirmed the dismissal of the strict liability claim, finding it was plain and obvious that Rylands v. Fletcher[11] did not apply to the facts of this case.[12] That doctrine, the Court clarified, is restricted to liability on a defendant’s “non-natural use” of land.[13]
Similarly, the Court found that the motion judge made no error in striking the public nuisance claim. The Court found that the manufacture of firearms is a lawful and heavily regulated activity in Ontario and therefore does not amount to a public nuisance.[14] The Court stated: “It is one thing to impose negligence-based liability on gun manufacturers for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of third parties’ use of firearms. It is quite another to impose liability in public nuisance, which does not inquire into foreseeability, proximity, or whether the defendant breached an applicable standard of care.”[15]
Error in Denial of Certification
The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in refusing to certify the negligence claim.[16] He improperly required the plaintiffs to prove the merits of their claim at the certification stage, contrary to the “some basis in fact” standard for common issues under s. 5(1)(c) of the CPA.[17]
The Court held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated some basis in fact for all four proposed common issues on appeal.[18] The case arose from a single firearm used by a single perpetrator in a single incident, satisfying the threshold for commonality across class members’ claims. Accordingly, the negligence claim was certified as a class proceeding.
Takeaways
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Price provides important takeaways.
This decision confirms that manufacturers can owe a duty of care to third parties harmed by their products, particularly when the product is inherently dangerous and the harm is foreseeable. It reinforces that claims should only be struck at the pleadings stage if it is truly “plain and obvious” they cannot succeed, allowing novel negligence claims to proceed where appropriate.
The ruling also clarifies that certification under the CPA does not require plaintiffs to prove their case on the merits. Instead, they must show a “some basis in fact” for the proposed common issue; a relatively low threshold aimed at promoting access to justice.
The decision in Price signals that courts may be increasingly open to imposing liability where companies fail to adopt reasonably available safety technologies.
[1] 2025 ONCA 452 [“Price”].
[2] Price at paras 7 and 8.
[3] Price at para 11.
[4] Price at para 12.
[5] Price at para 57.
[6] Price at para 63.
[7] Price at para 70.
[8] Price at paras 18 and 19.
[9] 2018 SCC 19, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 587.
[10] Price at para 57.
[11] (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (U.K.H.L.).
[12] Price at para 76.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Price at para 84.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Price at para 110.
[17] Price at para 90.
[18] Price at para 134.
