recent blog post , we discussed the Ontario Court's
consideration of the existence of an identifiable class in deciding
whether or not to certify a class action, both from an objective
perspective (i.e. the existence of an identifiable class) and from
a subjective perspective (i.e. whether or not the petitioner must
prove that the members of the class "desire to pursue their
claims by way of a class action").
While Quebec courts have yet to address the subjective aspect,
they have adopted an approach similar to the common law trend and
incorporated the objective criteria into their analysis.
New importance ascribed to the capacity of a representative to
represent the class
In the recent case Hébert v. Kia Canada Inc.,
citing the Court of Appeal decision in Perreault v. McNeil PDI inc., the
Superior Court of Quebec, applying the well-established criteria of
1003 d) CCP – a proposed representative must be in a
position to adequately represent the class members – held
that the lack of steps taken by the petitioner to identify the
class members evidences his inability to represent them
In this case, the petitioner was unable to name a single member
of the class other than himself who would have complained about a
deficient Bluetooth system. The Court held that the petitioner must
conduct an investigation in order to determine whether a proper
class exists. The lack of said investigation leads the Courts to
conclude that the petitioner is unable to effectively represent the
members of the class.
This case is also interesting because it is one of the rare
cases where the court makes a distinction between the efforts of
the petitioner and those of his lawyer, and criticises the
petitioner for not making his own investigation, relying instead on
a few documents his lawyer found online. The trend to date has been
to hold that, as long as the petitioner makes himself available to
his lawyer and submits to a deposition, it is sufficient. It will
be interesting to see whether courts follow the approach taken in
the Kia case.
No class, no common questions
Article 1003 a) CCP requires that the recourses of the members
raise identical, similar or related questions of fact or law.
Although the Court identified common questions that would have met
this criteria, it concluded that, since there is no identifiable
class, there cannot be any common questions and this criteria is
In essence, the objective identifiable class requirement was
read into the class action certification criteria of 1003 a), c)
and d) CCP.
An ongoing trend?
In a recent decision of Wilkinson v. Coca-Cola Ltd., dealing
with a proposed class action in the food industry, the Quebec
Superior Court also refused to certify the class action on similar
grounds. In fact, Quebec Courts have, over the last years, refused
to certify numerous proposed class actions due to the absence of an
It remains to be seen whether courts will continue to require
proof of the existence of an identifiable class as a criteria
implicit in the requirement of article 1003 CCP and whether, as is
the case in Ontario, Quebec courts will go even further and require
a subjective demonstration of the desire of the members of the
class to pursue their claims by way of a class action.
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).