Case information

Civil procedure — Class action — Authorization criteria — Appeals — Standard of review —Application for authorization to institute class action concerning vehicles equipped with defective part — Superior Court dismissed application for authorization — Court of Appeal set aside judgment and authorized class action — Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to circumvent the Motor Vehicle Safety Act safety recall regime by way of class actions parallel to ongoing safety recalls — Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct standard of review to the authorization judgment dismissing the class action — Whether the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the burden of proof was improper and amounted to a violation of the applicants’ fundamental rights and principles of procedural fairness —Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied the “presumption of prejudice” under the Québec Consumer Protection Act in order to hold that the plaintiff was a member of the class he purported to represent — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR c. C-25.01, art. 575 — Motor Vehicle Safety Act, S.C. 1993, c. 16 — Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2020, recall notices were issued in the U.S. and Canada by the applicants Denso International America Inc. and Denso Sales Canada, Inc. (collectively, “Denso”) and Toyota Sales Canada, Honda Canada Inc. and Subaru Canada Inc. (collectively, the “Manufacturers”), as well as their American affiliates, regarding defective low-pressure fuel pumps manufactured by Denso and installed in many different vehicle models sold or leased in the province of Quebec by the Manufacturers. The respondent Leslie Hand filed an application for the bringing of a class action for which he asked to be appointed as representative. Mr. Hand asserted that he, along with anyone who purchased or leased a “Subject Vehicle”, defined as being “all vehicles purchased or leased in Canada that contain defective low-pressure fuel pumps designed and manufactured by [Denso]”, was entitled to various forms of compensation. The Superior Court identified two sub-groups of potential members – those who received recall notices and those who did not – and concluded that Mr. Hand, as well as all potential members of the second sub-group, failed to make an arguable case that the fuel pumps in their vehicles were defective or that they should have received a recall notice. The Superior Court determined that the application must fail since Mr. Hand is not a member of the first sub-group and authorization is not granted for the second sub-group. The Court of Appeal granted the appeal, finding that the judge erred in concluding that Mr. Hand had failed to establish an arguable case, and that Mr. Hand benefits from a presumption of prejudice under the Consumer Protection Act.