In an article published by Thomson Reuters1 our partner Shaun E. Finn and our law student Tatianna Turcotte comment on a Superior Court of Québec decision addressing preliminary applications in class actions.
In Bourassa v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. ("Bourassa"), the Superior Court reiterates the principles set out by the Court of Appeal of Quebec in Asselin v. Desjardins Cabinet de services financiers Inc. and confirms that, for an application to produce appropriate evidence under article 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be granted prior to the authorization of a class action, such evidence must be indispensable and essential.
The Bourassa decision is yet another example where, in a class action context, the courts have nuanced the wording and content of a clear statutory provision. This recalls the jurisprudential teachings of previous cases in which, besides the interpretation and application of statutes, courts - even in a civilian or mixed regime such as Québec's - also advocate the attenuation of some statutory provisions which are not in themselves ambiguous.
Footnote
1. Shaun E. FINN and Tatianna TURCOTTE, « Commentaire sur la décision Bourassa c. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. – La preuve essentielle et indispensable à l'étape de la (pré)autorisation d'une action collective », in Repères, September 2022, La référence, EYB2022REP3511.
Originally published Oct 5, 2022
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
