Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal sought to overturn a class action authorization related to alleged vehicle defects in Ford Fusion Energi models.

• Central issue concerned the battery engine control module and risks of fire or power failure.

• The Superior Court had authorized a class action under Article 575 C.C.P., finding the criteria met.

• Ford argued multiple legal errors in the authorization decision, including lack of factual basis and misapplication of procedural standards.

• The Court of Appeal found no determinative error warranting leave to appeal.

• The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts and procedural background

This case concerns an attempted appeal by Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, following the Superior Court of Quebec’s decision to authorize a class action. The proposed class action was filed by Nathalie Charbonneau on behalf of Quebec residents who leased or purchased 2019 or 2020 Ford Fusion hybrid/PHEV Energi vehicles that were later subject to a product recall. The recall (number 23S33, issued on June 23, 2023) related to a potentially defective battery engine control module. The defect allegedly posed a risk of fire in the trunk area while driving and could cause a “Stop Safely Now” message followed by sudden power loss.

Charbonneau sought to represent two sub-groups: owners/lessees who still had their vehicles as of July 19, 2023, and those who no longer owned or leased them by that date. The recall instructed affected owners to stop charging their vehicles until a remedy became available, which led to claims of increased fuel costs and wear on the cars. The Superior Court, per Justice Pierre Nollet, found the legal and evidentiary criteria under Article 575 C.C.P. satisfied and authorized the action.

Court of Appeal decision

Ford sought leave to appeal this authorization, arguing that the Superior Court judge had committed several legal errors. The arguments included that the respondent did not have proper standing, that the claim lacked factual basis—particularly regarding battery degradation—and that the sub-groups were improperly defined. Ford also contested the judge’s determination that the claims involved sufficiently similar questions of law or fact.

Justice Peter Kalichman of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal. He found that none of the alleged errors rose to the level of determinative mistakes necessary to justify appellate intervention under Article 578 C.C.P. The judge emphasized that the original authorization decision had applied the correct analytical framework and had not made speculative or unfounded assumptions. The Court also noted that issues regarding Ford’s offer to buy back the vehicles at above-market prices did not render the class-wide issues moot at this stage. It was determined that this offer could potentially affect damage mitigation arguments but was not presently decisive.

Outcome

The application for leave to appeal was denied. The Court of Appeal upheld the authorization of the class action, confirming that the original judgment fell within the scope of permissible judicial discretion. Judicial costs were awarded against Ford.