Each Monday I intend to provide a potpourri of Quebec (and Canadian) legal developments. Issue 06 takes a brief look at a number of class actions, beginning with the certification against Tim Hortons, one dealing with Mentor silicone breast implants, and a class action authorization against Thrifty, the car rental company. Also, a class action was certified against the federal government over workers’ rights.
Quebec Consumer Protection Act
-
Drip pricing under the microscope following Quebec Court of Appeal ruling
A Quebec Court of Appeal ruling that ordered Air Canada to pay more than $10 million in punitive damages in a class action lawsuit underscores the growing risks companies engaging in drip pricing face, according to legal pundits.
The Appeal Court decision, following a long 15-year legal battle, marks the third significant case dealing with unbundled pricing over the past year, with the Competition Tribunal ordering Canada’s largest cinema chain, Cineplex Inc., to pay a record penalty of over $38.9 million for deceptive marketing practices by adding a mandatory $1.50 online booking fee, the first enforcement of the drip pricing provisions introduced by the amendments to Canada’s Competition Act. In June 2024, the Competition Bureau also reached an agreement with SiriusXM Canada, a subscription-based satellite radio and streaming content provider, over subscription price representations. Sirius agreed to pay a $3.3 million penalty, enhance its compliance program, and pledged not to engage in drip pricing.
-
Quebec strengthens Consumer Protection Act
Quebec consumers will benefit from greater protections following the enactment of two related regulations that introduced a new regime of administrative monetary penalties and increased fines for non-compliance of the Consumer Protection Act.
Under the new regime, Quebec’s consumer watchdog can now impose administrative monetary penalties for “objectively observable failures” to comply with the Act or the new Regulation respecting the Application of the Consumer Protection Act.
-
Quebec Consumer Protection Act does not apply to sale of prescription drugs, rules appeal court
In a resounding victory for the pharmaceutical industry, the Quebec Court of Appeal held that the province’s consumer protection law does not apply to the sale of prescription drugs, jettisoning a legal avenue a growing number of class action plaintiffs were using to sue the industry.
In what has been described as a landmark ruling by experts, the Quebec appeal court examined for the first time the merits of a class action regarding a drug manufacturer’s duty to warn. In dismissing a class action that alleged that Abbott Laboratories Inc. failed to provide sufficient information over the risks of a prescription drug, the appeal court provided critical guidance on the liability regime in Quebec for drug manufacturers facing product liability claims, confirmed for the first time the applicability of the learned intermediary doctrine in the province, and held that compliance with regulatory standards tends to indicate that drug manufacturers fulfilled its obligation to provide adequate information.
-
Bell Canada facing yet another class action
Barely a week after Bell Canada’s wireless provider was compelled to pay $1.6 million to some 76,000 clients who paid excessive cancellation fees after the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear its appeal, the telecommunication giant now faces another potentially costly legal battle after Quebec Superior Court authorized a class action over fee increases on internet, mobile, telephone, television services.
-
Appeal court authorizes class action against Mazda
A class action against an automobile manufacturer that was dismissed by a lower court was partially overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal after it held that Mazda Canada Inc. failed to disclose “important information” to consumers in a timely manner.
Hailed as a victory for consumers, the appeal court’s decision bucks the nationwide growing trend against economic loss based tort claims, and serves a clear reminder to manufacturers that it is in their best interests to promptly inform consumers over “important facts” regarding their products and to fix products afflicted with latent defects expeditiously, according to consumer law experts.