Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The class action centers on whether an erroneous prize email constitutes a binding representation under Quebec’s consumer protection laws.

• At issue is whether a promotional contest email can be deemed part of the sales contract between Tim Hortons and its customers.

• The lower court authorized the class action based solely on potential violations of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC), not on contract or donation claims.

• Applicants argued that the email was a post-contractual representation not subject to articles 41 and 42 LPC.

• Moral damages arising from emotional distress (excitement, stress, disappointment) due to the error are also being contested.

• The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the case raises serious legal questions justifying appellate review.

Facts of the case

Between March 4 and March 31, 2024, Tim Hortons ran its “Roll Up to Win” contest across its restaurants. On April 17, 2024, about 500,000 participants received an email indicating they had won a boat valued at $68,751. A few hours later, another email clarified that this was a mistake. Jonathan Deschatelets, representing himself and other affected customers, filed a request for authorization to initiate a class action. He relied on articles 41 and 42 of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC), which regulate misleading representations made by merchants. Although initially invoking article 1812 of the Code civil du Québec (regarding promises of donation), he abandoned that legal basis during the proceedings.

The Superior Court authorized the class action on the basis that the contest was an accessory to the sale of Tim Hortons products, making the promotional email a commercial representation within the meaning of the LPC. The judge rejected the argument that the email was a post-contractual representation outside the LPC’s scope and deferred certain issues (such as whether post-contractual representations are covered) to the merits stage.

The core legal issues identified by the Superior Court included whether Tim Hortons is legally required to deliver the boats, whether participants are entitled to equivalent monetary compensation, and whether punitive or moral damages should be awarded. The authorization judgment opened the door for the plaintiff to pursue all such claims on behalf of the group.

Procedural posture and appellate decision

The defendants sought permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge the Superior Court’s authorization. They argued that the lower court erred in three main ways: by incorrectly applying consumer protection law to a promotional contest, by mischaracterizing the nature of the representations made, and by allowing a claim for moral damages based on emotional distress.

Under article 578 of the Code de procédure civile, authorization judgments can only be appealed with leave. The Court emphasized that the threshold for authorization is intentionally low, designed to prevent frivolous actions while allowing plausible claims to proceed. Likewise, leave to appeal such judgments is only granted in exceptional circumstances where a clear and serious error appears on the face of the authorization ruling.

In this case, the Court of Appeal found that the issues raised were sufficiently serious to justify appellate review. It noted that determining whether post-contractual representations fall under articles 41 and 42 LPC, and whether such errors can give rise to moral or punitive damages, were significant enough to warrant further scrutiny.

Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal, ordering that the case proceed to a full hearing before a panel. It also set deadlines for filing written arguments and deferred the matter to be scheduled for hearing, with costs to follow the outcome of the appeal.