Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case involved a proposed class action stemming from an illegal construction strike in October 2011.

• The plaintiff alleged the defendant union council encouraged or failed to prevent illegal walkouts, causing economic harm.

• The Superior Court allowed the class action to proceed for an omission on October 25, 2011, but rejected claims tied to earlier conduct due to prescription.

• On appeal, the appellant argued that prescription had been interrupted or suspended based on prior legal actions and solidarity between co-defendants.

• The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, finding no legal or procedural basis for extending the prescriptive period.

• The appeal was dismissed, confirming the earlier ruling that claims related to the illegal strikes on October 21 and 24, 2011 were time-barred.

Background and the illegal strike

In October 2011, an illegal strike affected multiple construction sites across Québec in response to proposed legislation (Bill 33) that would reform job placement systems in the construction industry. Two major union federations—the Inter and the FTQ-Construction—strongly opposed the bill and promoted resistance among workers, including visiting sites and distributing materials. The walkouts occurred on October 21, 24, and 25, with construction activities resuming normally on October 26 following calls from union leaders to return to work.

Several contractors and employees claimed financial damages due to these unapproved strikes. The initial wave of litigation began in 2011, with one class action targeting FTQ-Construction authorized in 2013. After various proceedings and a partial settlement, Construction Marc Carrier Inc. sought to initiate a separate class action in 2020 against the Corporation de Conseil provincial du Québec des métiers de la construction (the Inter), alleging both active incitement to strike and negligent omission to stop the strike.

Procedural history and Superior Court ruling

In May 2024, the Québec Superior Court allowed the action to proceed only in relation to the alleged omission—namely, the Inter’s failure to instruct its members to return to work on October 25, 2011. The court held that this claim was still within the prescriptive period. However, it rejected the claim based on affirmative actions taken by the Inter on October 21 and 24, concluding that the limitation period for those allegations had expired.

The court reasoned that the claim was filed too late to benefit from any statutory interruptions or suspensions and that previous class actions did not preserve the right to sue the Inter for the earlier conduct.

Appeal and Court of Appeal decision

Marc Carrier appealed, arguing that prescription had been interrupted or suspended under several Civil Code provisions (including articles 2892, 2896, 2897, and 2908 C.c.Q.). The appellant asserted that the Inter’s involvement as a third-party or potential co-debtor in related litigation should have extended the prescription period. It also argued for the application of solidarity between defendants, claiming that if FTQ-Construction was partly liable, the Inter could be held jointly responsible.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. It emphasized that solidarity cannot be presumed when liability is not established, and that FTQ-Construction had already been cleared of fault for the walkouts on October 21 and 24. Since the Inter had not been formally included in earlier proceedings and the attempted intervention against it had failed, the legal interruption of prescription did not apply. The suspension under article 2908 likewise did not apply, as it only protects defendants formally included in a class action, which the Inter was not.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with costs awarded against Construction Marc Carrier Inc. The ruling confirmed that the class action could proceed solely in relation to damages allegedly caused by the Inter’s failure to instruct workers to return to work on October 25, 2011. Claims related to earlier days of the strike were permanently time-barred. The decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with limitation periods in Québec civil litigation, especially in the context of class actions.