Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Desjardins challenged expert evidence on the basis that it allegedly expanded the certified scope of a class action.

• The Court of Appeal affirmed that the expert reports were admissible and relevant to the authorized class action.

• Assertions of prejudice from Desjardins were deemed speculative and not constitutive of irreparable harm under Quebec civil procedure.

• The Court clarified that allegations concerning both “Portion capital” and “Portion rendement” could be explored within the framework of established claims.

• The Superior Court’s discretion to defer final evidentiary determinations to the trial judge was upheld.

• Expert reports met Supreme Court criteria for admissibility: relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and expert qualification.

Background to the class action

This case stems from a class action authorized in 2015 against Desjardins Sécurité financière and Desjardins Gestion internationale d’actifs inc. The action was brought on behalf of investors who, as of December 31, 2008, held certain structured financial products offering guaranteed capital and variable yield options, referred to as “Portion capital” and “Portion rendement,” respectively. Although the capital was returned to investors at maturity, the plaintiffs sought damages related to the lack of expected returns from the “Portion rendement.”

Expert reports and the procedural challenge

In July 2024, the plaintiffs disclosed two expert reports: one from Pierre Malo and another co-authored by Professors Martin Boyer and René Garcia. Desjardins moved to strike parts of these reports, arguing that they introduced new claims beyond the certified class action scope, particularly by referencing implicit fees and costs related to the “Portion capital.” Desjardins contended this altered the litigation framework and would prejudice their defense.

The Superior Court rejected Desjardins’ motion in February 2025, finding the reports pertinent and admissible. It held that the reports remained focused on the central allegations—namely, whether Desjardins properly disclosed risks and fulfilled their obligations concerning the investment products.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Desjardins then sought permission to appeal this interlocutory ruling, arguing that admitting the expert reports caused irreparable harm under Article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Justice Rancourt of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the motion.

The Court found that the alleged expansion of the case’s scope was not substantiated and that any potential prejudice could be addressed at trial. The analysis affirmed that the experts' commentary on structural vulnerabilities, risk exposure, and associated costs was relevant to determining whether Desjardins breached its duties. Moreover, the Court noted that the trial judge would ultimately evaluate the admissibility and weight of expert opinions. It also highlighted that the plaintiffs did not seek damages based on the “Portion capital,” countering Desjardins' concern of a shifting litigation framework.

Conclusion and outcome

The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court's decision, confirming that expert reports could be admitted and considered during trial. It found no procedural violation or irreparable harm arising from the ruling. As such, Desjardins' application for leave to appeal was rejected, allowing the class action to proceed with the full evidentiary record intact. This decision emphasizes judicial discretion in managing expert evidence within class proceedings and reinforces that procedural appeals must demonstrate concrete, not theoretical, harm.