A lawsuit filed in British Columbia against Monsanto Canada ULC is just one of a growing number of lawsuits targeting the U.S.-based agrochemical corporation for its herbicide Roundup.
Alongside Monsanto, the notice of civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court names the multinational pharmaceutical company Bayer as a defendant as well as retailers where Roundup is sold, including Canadian Tire and Home Hardware among others. This suit is in addition to multiple class action lawsuits being filed against Monsanto in the United States.
In his suit, Clifford Frank Sissons claims that he used Roundup heavily at various rental properties from 1987 to 2018. In June of the last year, Sissons was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which the suit alleges was caused, or materially contributed to, by his use of Roundup.
The lawsuit points to the chemical compound glyphosate contained in Roundup as the cause of the cancer and says that glyphosate-based herbicides are the most commonly and intensely used herbicides in the word.
“The defendants knew of or should have known that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup, and specifically Roundup, had been associated with the cause of several types of cancers,” read the court filings.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled Sissons and other customers by not providing any health warnings in their sales brochures or advertisements, and not issuing a warning when selling the product. According to the claim, the retailers knew that Sissons would be mixing and using the herbicide himself, and they had an obligation to ensure such a practice would be safe to perform.
Sissons claims that, in addition to suffering from cancer, he has other personal ailments including headaches, chronic muscular pain and physiological injuries. Sissons is seeking general and special damages, as well as damages for lost earning capacity. He is also suing for costs and future medical care. For his case, Sissons is relying on the legal arguments of negligence, breach of duty of care and breach of the Consumer Protection Act.
The claims have not been tested in court, and the respondents had not responded to the petition by press time.