In my view, this application is merely an attempt to eventually relitigate my various findings and determinations before a new judge. That would be a complete waste of judicial resources and add unreasonably to the expense and the delay in this matter. The proper course is for the JUUL defendants to challenge my findings and determinations in the Court of Appeal in due course.
Mann-Campbell v. JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd.
Mann-Campbell v. JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd., 2025 BCSC 2679 (CanLII).
- Canada
- Dec 19, 2025
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
Parties
Legislation Cited
Related Documents
Type of Litigation
Tobacco Control Topics
Substantive Issues
Type of Tobacco Product
This premise, in my view, is fundamentally incorrect. The reasons are full of findings and determinations that were made after hearing full argument and considering all of the evidence of the parties. The fact that the order merely adjourns the hearing does not negate these findings and determinations.
Applicants brought an application for certification of a class action against JUUL, an e-cigarette manufacturer. In a prior decision in May 2025, the judge adjourned the certification application, allowing the Applicants to amend their notice of civil claim seeking class certification.
JUUL then brought an application for the judge to disqualify and recuse himself. JUUL argued that the judge had not yet decided any issues in the matter and had only adjourned the earlier certification proceeding.
In this December 2025 decision, the judge declined to recuse himself, concluding JUUL’s premise was “fundamentally incorrect.” The judge noted he had made findings in an earlier hearing and the adjournment of the earlier hearing did not negate these findings.
The judge also noted that, although Altria, a second Defendant, supported JUUL’s recusal application, Altria was required to bring their own application for recusal given that their arguments were different than those of JUUL.