On July 21, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec (the "Court") in Langlais c. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2025 QCCS 2552 refused to authorize a class action regarding false representations surrounding black olives produced and sold by the defendants. This decision underlines the importance of the filtering mechanism at authorization and recalls the principles applicable at this stage.
Background
In 2019, Radio-Canada's program L'Épicerie aired an episode on the production of olives, including the process by which green olives ripen and become black. After viewing this episode, the plaintiff commenced a class action against the defendants, nine merchants and manufacturers, seeking full reimbursement for the black olives she purchased because of the false representations regarding the method by which these olives are produced. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented that these olives are naturally ripened black olives, when they are in fact green olives ripened through chemical alteration, by the addition of ferrous gluconate. The plaintiff also argued that the olive treatment process is an important fact that should have been included in the defendants' representations.
No colour of right
The Court refused to authorize the proposed class action because the plaintiff did not demonstrate any colour of right.
First, the plaintiff's allegations were contradicted by her own evidence. Although the allegations are generally taken as true, it is not the case when they are clearly false as in this instance. Notably, it appears from the Radio-Canada program that it is oxygen that ripens and blackens olives through an oxidation process. Ferrous gluconate is only added once the oxidation process is complete, to stabilize the colour. Furthermore, ferrous gluconate is named in the ingredient list, in compliance with applicable legislations on foods, and nothing in the evidence indicates that the defendants represented that the olives sold are "natural", "naturally ripened" or "organic". The Court therefore concluded that the goods sold matched the description given by the defendants (ss. 41 and 41 Consumer Protection Act ("CPA")).
For similar reasons, the Court also found that there is no colour of right with respect to the false representation claim (ss. 219 and 221 CPA; s. 52(1) Competition Act). The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's teachings in Time1 on the subject: the Court must consider the literal meaning of the terms used as well as the general impression given by the representation, which must be analyzed in abstracto, that is, by setting aside the plaintiff's personal attributes. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the defendants' representations give the general impression that the olives sold are natural.
Finally, the Court concluded that the olive treatment process was not a material fact that the defendants omitted to disclose (s. 228 CPA). The evidence shows that the plaintiff continued to purchase black olives after having seen the Radio-Canada program and learned about the treatment process. This process was therefore not a fact capable of influencing her conduct, which is one of the four criteria set out in Time for the analysis of prohibited practices under Title II of the CPA. As this fourth criterion is not satisfied, the olive treatment process is not a material fact that the defendants omitted in their representations. Moreover, since the plaintiff continued to purchase olives for 14 months after learning of their treatment process, the Court also concluded that she did not have the necessary legal standing to claim damages against the defendants.
The damages claimed
In addition to the findings on the absence of colour of right, the Court also ruled on the damages claimed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed compensatory damages in the form of a full reimbursement for the olives she purchased in the three years before the institution of proceedings. The Court noted that reimbursement could only occur if the sale contracts were declared null, which would require the return of the purchased olives as a corollary. This is evidently not possible as the olives were consumed. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine the value difference between the olives purchased by the plaintiff and the olives for which the treatment process was disclosed on the packaging.
As for punitive damages, the Court rejected the claim, noting the absence of factual allegations that would warrant such a conclusion and emphasizing that punitive damages are not awarded automatically.
Significance of the decision
Despite the low threshold adopted by the Quebec courts, this decision demonstrates the importance of the authorization stage as a filtering mechanism against frivolous or untenable actions. The trial judge analyzed each cause of action and, in doing so, reiterated the legal principles that may lead to a dismissal of the application for authorization. Notably, the judge reiterated the need to allege facts in support of the claim for punitive damages, which should not be authorized or awarded automatically.
Footnote
1. Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8
To view the original article click here
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.
