Background:
David Scott Jamieson, a British Columbia resident, filed a proposed class action against McKinsey & Company Canada and McKinsey & Company, Inc., United States, alleging that McKinsey played a central role in advising opioid manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma, on strategies to increase opioid sales, leading to widespread addiction.

Legal Issues:
McKinsey applied to strike Jamieson’s claim under Rule 9-5(1)(d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, arguing that the claim was barred by a 2017 settlement agreement between Purdue and Canadian opioid users. McKinsey contended that it was a third-party beneficiary of the settlement and was released from liability. Jamieson countered that his claim was broader, targeting McKinsey’s independent conduct in allegedly fueling the opioid crisis.

Court's Findings:
The court dismissed McKinsey’s application, ruling that:

• McKinsey failed to provide sufficient evidence that it was covered by the Purdue settlement.
• The lawsuit alleged McKinsey’s direct role in opioid marketing, not just Purdue’s actions.
• The claim did not constitute an abuse of process, as it focused on McKinsey’s separate liability.

Final Decision & Costs:
The court allowed Jamieson’s claim to proceed and dismissed McKinsey’s application. The decision did not specify a monetary award or costs in favor of either party.