Case information

Civil procedure — Class action — Consumer protection — Punitive damages — Authorization to institute class action — Application for authorization to institute class action granted in part in order to pursue a claim to collect punitive damages from cellphone manufacturers based on alleged breaches to Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act — What is required to authorize a class action for punitive damages when a specialized regulator’s requirements are met and there is no injury? — Whether a mere allegation of an intentional violation to the Consumer Protection Act is sufficient to authorize a class action for punitive damages — Whether class actions can be used to challenge regulatory standards set by a federal specialized regulator — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C-25.01, art. 575 — Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1, ss. 53, 228 and 272.

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 respondents are representative plaintiffs in a proposed class action. They have owned, leased or used various iPhones and Samsung cellphones over the years. Their application to the Superior Court of Quebec was granted in part so that they are authorized to institute part of their proposed class action. The Superior Court assumed several allegations relating to some key factual premises to be true because they were supported by some evidence. It concluded the plaintiffs had met their burden to demonstrate that it is tenable and not frivolous to advance that the cellphones pose a risk or danger when placed too close to the body or because of radiofrequency exposure more generally. The plaintiffs could therefore advance the following arguments relying on provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”): a lack of instructions necessary for the protection of cellphone users against a risk or danger of which they would be otherwise unaware constitutes a safety defect and is a prohibited practice because there is a lack of instructions given the risk or danger. They could also advance that they are entitled to punitive damages by relying on s. 272 of the CPA. The Quebec Court of Appeal granted the applicants leave to appeal but dismissed their appeal.