Case information

Civil procedure — Class action — Authorization to institute class action — Conditions for authorization — Application for authorization to institute class action on behalf of inmates of Établissement de détention de Québec — Whether applicant showed that Superior Court should have authorized class action — Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to intervene — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, art. 575.

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.

The applicant, Samuel Cozak, sought authorization to institute a class action on behalf of the inmates of Établissement de détention de Québec (“EDQ”) for the period starting September 9, 2015. He believed that the detention conditions were inappropriate and caused damage of a civil nature to the inmates, in violation of the rights recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Charter of human rights and freedoms. The respondent, the Attorney General of Quebec, representing the Minister of Public Security, contested all aspects of the application.

The Superior Court dismissed the application for authorization to institute a class action on behalf of current or former inmates of EDQ. It found that the composition of the class made it difficult or impracticable to apply the rules for mandates to take part in judicial proceedings on behalf of others (art. 575(3) C.C.P.) but that the applicant did not meet any of the other three conditions for authorization: there were no common issues (art. 575(1) C.C.P.), the facts alleged did not appear to justify the conclusions sought (art. 575(2) C.C.P.), and the applicant did not have the capacity and qualities needed to properly represent the class members (art. 575(4) C.C.P.). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superior Court judge had not made any reviewable error in assessing the conditions set out in art. 575(2) and (4) C.C.P. and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider the judge’s assessment of the common issues condition in art. 575(1).