Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Allegations of abusive airfare pricing by Air Transat during an Air Canada strike engage Québec consumer protection law and civil law standards on abusive practices and contractual clauses.
• The scope and composition of the proposed worldwide class turn on whether allegedly “inflated” prices can be measured against Air Transat’s historical fares for similar routes in the same period.
• Admissibility of Air Canada press releases and website materials as “appropriate evidence” is central to contextualizing the plaintiff’s reimbursements and the surrounding factual matrix at authorization.
• The plaintiff’s own refund history with Air Canada, including dates, amounts, and supporting documents, is treated as a key evidentiary gap to be completed before the authorization hearing.
• The court balances proportionality and the limited, prima facie nature of class action authorization against the defendant’s attempt to conduct written interrogatories of the representative plaintiff.
• Procedural discretion is exercised to partially grant both parties’ requests, permitting amendments and documentary evidence while refusing a broad written examination of the plaintiff and instead ordering targeted document production.

Background and facts of the case

This case arises from a proposed consumer class action launched in the context of a labour dispute at Air Canada that disrupted air travel in August 2025. On 21 August 2025, Carol Levine filed an Application to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action in the Superior Court of Québec (Class Actions Chamber) against Air Transat A.T. Inc. She alleges that during an Air Canada flight attendants’ strike, Air Transat offered tickets at abusive prices, in breach of article 8 of the Consumer Protection Act (Loi sur la protection du consommateur) and articles 7 and 1437 of the Civil Code of Québec. The proposed class encompasses all persons worldwide who booked flights with Air Transat from 14 August 2025 onward and who allegedly paid inflated or excessive fares compared with Air Transat’s historically charged prices for similar itineraries during the same period. The factual narrative is anchored in the cancellation of Air Canada flights beginning on 16 August 2025 and the need for passengers, including Ms. Levine, to purchase replacement tickets, allegedly at higher prices, from Air Transat.

The proposed class and legal framework

The plaintiff’s theory situates the dispute squarely within Québec consumer protection and civil law. Article 8 of the Consumer Protection Act prohibits a merchant from making a contract with a consumer where the disproportion between the consumer’s obligation and the merchant’s obligation is so great as to amount to exploitation, particularly where the consumer is in a vulnerable situation. Articles 7 and 1437 C.c.Q. similarly address abuse of rights and abusive clauses or obligations in contracts, providing a civil law basis to challenge terms or pricing that are excessively disadvantageous. The authorization stage of a class action in Québec is governed by article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.), which requires the plaintiff to show, on a prima facie basis, that the claims raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact, that the facts alleged appear to justify the conclusions sought, that the composition of the group makes individual actions impracticable, and that the representative plaintiff is in a position to properly represent the class. The action must also comply with procedural rules for class proceedings, including article 585 C.p.c., which requires leave of the court to amend pleadings in class actions.

The emergence of refund issues and the defendant’s motion

A key factual and evidentiary theme in this interlocutory judgment is the treatment of refunds that Ms. Levine received from Air Canada. These refunds relate both to the unused portion of her original Air Canada tickets and to the additional expenses incurred in buying replacement tickets from Air Transat. In November 2025, Air Transat brought a motion seeking permission to file what Québec class action jurisprudence calls “preuve appropriée” (appropriate evidence) and to submit written interrogatories to the representative plaintiff. The evidence sought was aimed at clarifying the refunds Ms. Levine obtained from Air Canada—an aspect that was not initially addressed in the authorization application. At a first hearing on 19 January 2026, the plaintiff objected to the defendant’s request because there was no supporting sworn declaration from an Air Transat representative. The court therefore paused the hearing to allow Air Transat to regularize its motion. On 23 January 2026, Air Transat filed a modified motion for appropriate evidence and leave to examine the plaintiff in writing, now supported by the sworn declaration of its senior paralegal, Geneviève Guay Gagnon. In response, on 30 January 2026, the plaintiff amended her authorization application to add allegations about the refunds she had received from Air Canada, thereby integrating the refund issue into her own pleadings and partially addressing the factual concerns underlying Air Transat’s motion.

Amendments to the authorization application

Because this is a class action file, any amendment to the authorization application requires leave of the court under article 585 C.p.c. In keeping with established principles, the court reiterates that the right to amend is the rule and refusal is the exception, provided the changes are relevant to the authorization criteria in article 575 C.p.c., are connected to the original claim, and are not contrary to the interests of justice. Here, the amendments were prompted directly by Air Transat’s motion for appropriate evidence and serve to clarify the plaintiff’s refund history with Air Canada. The court finds that these amendments help complete the factual picture relevant to authorization and are pertinent to evaluating the action’s viability. Since Air Transat does not contest the amendments per se (but simply argues that they do not fully answer all its questions), the court authorizes the changes to the Amended Application to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action.

Policy terms and reimbursement framework

The defendant’s motion for appropriate evidence is heavily focused on contextual materials originating from Air Canada rather than from the defendant itself. Air Transat seeks to introduce four documents: a 13 August 2025 Air Canada press release announcing the cancellation of all flights from 16 August 2025 due to the cabin crew strike; a 19 August 2025 press release announcing the end of the strike, resumption of service, and a special policy to cover travel expenses incurred by customers in reaching their destinations during the disruption; and two extracts from Air Canada’s website, one titled “Help with refunds in the context of a work stoppage” and the other “Eligibility form and refund application in case of flight disruption.” Through these documents, Air Transat aims to show the existence and structure of Air Canada’s special reimbursement policies, including the mechanisms by which passengers could seek refunds or compensation for replacement travel expenses. Although the case is framed primarily under Québec consumer protection and civil law rather than airline regulations per se, the content of these policies is legally significant: it bears directly on the quantification of any alleged loss, the extent to which the plaintiff (and the proposed class) may already have been compensated by Air Canada, and the actual economic impact of Air Transat’s pricing during the strike period. The court views these materials as filling a factual gap in the pleadings, particularly concerning the procedure and context for obtaining refunds following the cancellation of Air Canada flights.

Determination of what constitutes appropriate evidence

Relying on recent Québec case law, notably Toledano v. Bank of Nova Scotia and other class action authorities, the court sets out the criteria for admitting “preuve appropriée” at the authorization stage. Evidence is appropriate only if it is relevant and useful to assessing the article 575 C.p.c. criteria; it must be proportionate and consistent with the principle that authorization is a preliminary, prima facie screening, not a full trial on the merits. The defendant cannot, through such evidence, seek to prove a substantive defence or challenge the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations, except in cases of allegations that are clearly implausible or manifestly inaccurate. The court must avoid allowing an expansive evidentiary record that goes beyond what is strictly necessary to determine whether there is a defensible cause of action. Applying those principles, the court concludes that the Air Canada press releases and web-page extracts are appropriate and relevant. They provide essential context for the refund mechanisms and policies that directly affect the plaintiff’s alleged damages and the structure of the proposed class action. The supporting sworn declaration by Ms. Guay Gagnon is also admitted, and the plaintiff does not seek to cross-examine her. Accordingly, the court authorizes Air Transat to file the declaration and documents D-1 to D-4 as appropriate evidence at the authorization stage, while making clear that this decision does not prejudge the weight ultimately to be given to those materials when the court assesses the article 575 criteria.

Written interrogatories and proportionality

The more contentious issue is the defendant’s request to conduct a written examination of the representative plaintiff. Air Transat proposed a detailed list of questions, primarily focused on whether Ms. Levine had made refund or compensation requests under Air Canada’s special policies, the dates of such requests, and the supporting documentation and communications exchanged with Air Canada. The questions were structured around the two policy-related web pages (D-3 and D-4) and also asked about any other payments, refunds, or indemnities received from Air Canada or third parties, such as travel agents, in connection with the 16 August 2025 flight cancellation and the purchase of Air Transat replacement tickets. The court refers to recent authority, including Jean-Antoine v. Samsung Electronics Canada Inc., to restate the principles governing pre-authorization interrogatories in class actions. An examination, whether oral or written, is only appropriate if it is essential to verifying the article 575 C.p.c. criteria and must respect proportionality and reasonable conduct under articles 18 and 19 C.p.c. It cannot be used as a pre-trial discovery into the merits of the allegations or as a way to mount a substantive defence at the authorization stage. The burden lies on the party seeking the examination to demonstrate its necessity. In light of these principles and the newly admitted evidence and amendments, the court finds that Air Transat’s proposed interrogatories are largely redundant and overly broad. The combination of the Air Canada documents and the plaintiff’s amended allegations already reveals that Ms. Levine received two refunds: one for the unused portion of her Air Canada tickets and another relating to the Air Transat tickets, with specified dates and amounts. Much of what Air Transat seeks to obtain through written questions is now apparent from the existing record.

Targeted completion of the evidentiary record

That said, the court identifies one remaining evidentiary gap: while the plaintiff produced documentary support (a receipt) for the refund of 1,403.80 CAD covering the unused Air Canada tickets, she did not produce documents supporting the partial refund of 3,882.74 CAD she alleges to have received in respect of the Air Transat tickets, out of a total of 5,355.52 CAD paid. The defendant argues that the plaintiff should produce the actual refund form and confirmation of payment, but the plaintiff suggests it is possible no copy exists if the form was filled out online. Weighing proportionality and the limited scope of pre-authorization procedures, the court declines to authorize the full slate of written interrogatories. Instead, it crafts a narrower order designed to complete the factual record on a key aspect of the alleged loss. Ms. Levine is ordered to provide Air Transat with the completed refund form submitted to Air Canada in relation to the 3,882.74 CAD reimbursement and the receipt or other document confirming that refund. If she cannot provide these documents—for example, because they are no longer in her possession or were never made available in a storable format—she must deliver a sworn declaration outlining the steps she took to obtain reimbursement and the reasons she does not have the requested documents. These materials must be provided to the defendant and filed in the court record by 6 March 2026 so that they can form part of the evidence available at the authorization hearing.

Next procedural steps and overall outcome

The judgment concludes by directing the parties to confer on the anticipated length of the authorization hearing and to agree on a timetable for filing their written argument plans, with a view to setting a hearing date. They must inform the court of their agreed schedule by 10 March 2026. Costs are expressly reserved (“frais à suivre”), meaning no determination is made at this stage as to who will ultimately bear costs. Overall, the outcome is mixed: the plaintiff successfully obtains leave to amend her authorization application and avoids a broad, potentially intrusive written examination, while the defendant succeeds in having its documentary evidence admitted and in securing an order compelling targeted disclosure from the representative plaintiff. Because this is an interlocutory procedural ruling at the authorization stage, there is no final judicial determination of liability, no clear “winning” party on the merits, and no damages or costs are awarded. The only specific financial figure in play is the 3,882.74 CAD refund that the plaintiff says she received, but that amount is not granted or ordered by the court; it is simply the subject of the disclosure order. Accordingly, the successful party on the merits and any total monetary award or costs in favour of that party cannot yet be determined from this decision alone.