On June 5, 2003, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the Act violated the territorial limits of provincial law and was unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal, in May 2004, overturned the decision on the basis that the pith and substance, i.e. the dominant characteristic, of the law fell under the property and civil rights provision of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The subject matter of the Act, compensation for health costs, and the effect, suing companies who harmed those in the province, all point at a valid provincial law.

The Court dismissed the suggestion that the shift in burden to the accused or the unconventional rules of procedure and evidence created by the Act have any effect on independence.

The rule of law, as protected by the Constitution, does not require that Acts ensure a fair civil trial or avoid giving the government advantages.

The Supreme Court held that accepting this amorphous conception of the rule of law would render several provisions of the Charter redundant because they are more narrowly formulated.