What should a court do when faced with two motions for
authorization to institute a class action which seek permission to
represent the same class for the same cause of action? Since 1999,
the Quebec courts have applied the "first to file" rule,
developed in Hotte c Servier Canada Inc.,1
whereby the first motion for authorization filed takes precedence
over any other subsequent motion seeking authorization to represent
the same class.
On December 3, 2012, in Schmidt c Johnson & Johnson et
al,2 the Quebec Court of Appeal handed down an
important decision which adds to the Servier rule. In
Schmidt, the Court had to decide which of the following
two motions for authorization, both directed at various hip implant
manufacturers, would prevail and which would be stayed:
- A first motion, which had been filed in the office of the Superior Court on November 26, 2010 but was obviously incomplete. The body of the motion was just three paragraphs long, and the legal argument as well as the conclusions sought remained to be completed. In addition, the motion had been served on the respondents late, in February 2011.
- A second motion, which had been filed after the first, on December 21, 2010, but whose allegations and conclusions were complete. The motion had been served on the respondents the day after it was filed, on December 22, 2010.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling in first instance and stayed the first motion, which had been filed first.
In its analysis, the Court of Appeal rejected a mechanical application of the "first to file" rule. It also rejected the application, in Quebec law, of the approach that predominates in the common law provinces, the carriage hearing. Under that comparative approach, a court is to determine, in light of a series of factors, which application for certification of a class proceeding is in the best interests of the members of the proposed class.
Instead, the Court of Appeal proposed a more flexible
application of the Servier rule and prescribed the following
- the first motion to be filed in the office of the court is, in principle, the one that will be heard in priority;
- meanwhile, subsequent motions are stayed and will be heard, in the order they were filed, only if the preceding one is dismissed;
- the priority of the first motion may be challenged by the attorneys of record in the subsequent motions; and
- the party challenging the priority has the burden of establishing that the motion enjoying priority is not in the best interests of the putative members, but rather constitutes an abuse of the Servier rule.
By tempering the Servier rule, the test laid down by the Court of Appeal will promote the filing of motions for authorization that are more complete and better put together. This is excellent news both for the class members covered by competing motions and for respondents, who will be able to defend themselves against proceedings that have been prepared with greater care.
1  RJQ 2598 (CA)
2 Schmidt c Johnson & Johnson et al (3 décembre 2012), Montréal, 500-09-021619-119 (CA Qué).
3 Idem, para 50.
Norton Rose Group
Norton Rose Group is a leading international legal practice. We offer a full business law service to many of the world's pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia.
Knowing how our clients' businesses work and understanding what drives their industries is fundamental to us. Our lawyers share industry knowledge and sector expertise across borders, enabling us to support our clients anywhere in the world. We are strong in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and pharmaceuticals and life sciences.
We have more than 2900 lawyers operating from 43 offices in Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing, Bogotá, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Caracas, Casablanca, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, Moscow, Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta.
Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose Australia, Norton Rose Canada LLP, Norton Rose South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective affiliates.
On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose Group adding strength and depth in Canada, Latin America and around the world. For more information please visit nortonrose.com.
Norton Rose will join forces with Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P on June 1, 2013, creating Norton Rose Fulbright a global legal practice with significant depth of expertise across the USA, Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.