Case information

Civil procedure — Class action — Criteria for authorizing class action — Application for authorization to institute class action in nullity of contract based on failure to comply with certain requirements of Consumer Protection Act — Contracts of additional or extended warranty — Whether Court of Appeal’s application of s. 8 of Consumer Protection Act in class action context is contrary to its own case law — Whether authorization of class action based on s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act is contrary to Fortier v. Meubles Léon Ltée, 2014 QCCA 195, and whether it imposes additional legal obligations with respect to additional warranties — Whether courts must apply test from Richard v. Time Inc., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 265, to determine whether applicant for authorization to institute class action or designated person meets criterion set out in art. 575(2) of Code of Civil Procedure in context of false or misleading representations — Whether Court of Appeal’s judgment in Fortier is precedent that must be followed for description of class in class action based on false or misleading representations — Whether Court of Appeal cast doubt on raison d’être of authorization to institute class action — Sections 8, 35, 219 and 220, Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P-40.1 — Article 575, Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01.

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.

When she purchased a laptop computer in a store operated by the applicant, Best Buy Canada Ltd., in September 2006, the respondent Jessica Desjardins also purchased an additional warranty known as a Product Service Plan (“PSP”). A short while after purchasing the computer, Ms. Desjardins started having technical problems with it. After Best Buy Canada refused to give effect to the PSP, Ms. Desjardins had to send her computer to the manufacturer and pay certain costs a number of times, after which she filed a complaint with the Office de la protection du consommateur in January 2007. In September 2007, the respondent Consumers’ Union filed a motion for authorization to institute a class action. In July 2013, Justice Michel A. Caron of the Superior Court ordered that the proceedings in the case be stayed until the Court of Appeal ruled on several applications for authorization to institute class actions with respect to additional warranties. In February 2014, the Court of Appeal ruled on those applications in Fortier v. Meubles Léon Ltée, 2014 QCCA 195. This led the Consumers’ Union to amend its pleading in October 2015 in order to point out the distinctions between its class action and the ones that had been decided in Fortier. The Superior Court granted the respondents’ motion for authorization to institute a class action in part. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Consumers’ Union in part, and dismissed an incidental appeal by Best Buy Canada Ltd.