7 (1) This section applies to an action for the recovery of the cost of health care benefits, or for damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by an opioid-related wrong, other than an action for the recovery of the cost of health care benefits on an aggregate basis. 2019, c. 17, Sched. 2, s. 7 (1). Two or more defendants (2) If the Crown in right of Ontario or the Crown in right of Canada, as the case may be is unable to establish which defendant caused or contributed to the use or exposure described in clause (b) and, as a result of a breach of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation, (a)  one or more defendants causes or contributes to a risk of disease, injury or illness by making a type of opioid product available to insured persons; and (b)  an insured person has used or been exposed to the type of opioid product referred to in clause (a) and suffers disease, injury or illness as a result of the use or exposure, the court may find each defendant that caused or contributed to the risk of disease, injury or illness liable for a proportion of the damages or cost of health care benefits incurred, equal to the proportion of its contribution to that risk of disease, injury or illness. 2019, c. 17, Sched. 2, s. 7 (2); 2023, c. 21, Sched. 9, s. 8 (1). Considerations (3) The court may consider the following in apportioning liability under subsection (2): 1.  The length of time a defendant engaged in the conduct that caused or contributed to the risk of disease, injury or illness. 2.  The market share a defendant had in the type of opioid product that caused or contributed to the risk of disease, injury or illness. 3.  The degree of potency of the opioid product manufactured or promoted by a defendant. 4.  The amount spent by a defendant on promoting the type of opioid product that caused or contributed to the risk of disease, injury or illness. 5.  The degree to which a defendant collaborated or acted in concert with other manufacturers, wholesalers or consultants in any conduct that caused, contributed to or aggravated the risk of disease, injury or illness. 6.  The extent to which a defendant conducted tests and studies to determine the risk of disease, injury or illness resulting from use of or exposure to the type of opioid product. 7.  The extent to which a defendant assumed a leadership role in manufacturing or promoting the type of opioid product. 8.  The efforts a defendant made to warn practitioners and the public about the risk of disease, injury or illness resulting from use of or exposure to the type of opioid product. 9.  The extent to which a defendant continued manufacturing or promoting the type of opioid product after it knew or ought to have known the risk of disease, injury or illness resulting from use of or exposure to the type of opioid product. 10.  The extent to which a defendant continued promoting the type of opioid product after it knew or ought to have known that the amount or dosage of the type of opioid product promoted did not reasonably reflect the health needs of the population of insured persons who were likely to use or be exposed to the type of opioid product. 11.  Affirmative steps that a defendant took to reduce the risk of disease, injury or illness to the public. 12.  Other considerations considered relevant by the court. 2019, c. 17, Sched. 2, s. 7 (3); 2023, c. 21, Sched. 9, s. 8 (2). Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) 2023, c. 21, Sched. 9, s. 8 (1, 2) - 04/12/2023