Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of appropriate pre-authorization evidence in a Québec class action, particularly regarding defendants’ ability to file detailed technological evidence about their platform.
• Judicial discretion to admit evidence at the authorization stage under articles 574 and 575 C.p.c., even where parties do not contest its filing but the court must still be satisfied it is “appropriate.”
• Use of a sworn declaration (Jonathan Hamel) and screenshots of the Uber ecosystem to fill factual gaps in the authorization application relating to how the platform functions.
• Potential impact of the admitted evidence on defining and circumscribing the proposed class of Uber Eats grocery customers allegedly charged for items not precisely indicated in the contract.
• Reservation of the plaintiff’s right to later challenge the relevance and probative value of the defendants’ evidence as it relates to the criteria in article 575 C.p.c. at the authorization hearing.
• Decision to grant the defendants’ motion to file the evidence without any award of costs, leaving all substantive issues on authorization and liability to be determined later.

Background and proposed class

The case arises from an application to authorize the bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Québec, Class Actions Chamber, against several related Uber entities offering the Uber Eats platform in Québec. The proposed representative plaintiff, Cynthia Birikundavyi, filed her Application to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action on 15 July 2025 against Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Rasier Canada Inc., Uber Portier Canada Inc., Uber Castor Canada Inc. and Uber Canada Inc. She seeks to represent consumers in Québec who used Uber Eats for grocery deliveries and were allegedly charged amounts for items not precisely indicated in their contracts. The proposed class is defined as all persons in Québec who, after placing a grocery delivery order on Uber Eats, were charged by Uber for items not precisely indicated in the contract, or any other group defined by the Court. The claims thus sit at the intersection of consumer protection, contract, and class action procedure.

Procedural posture and nature of the motion

The decision summarized here does not resolve the authorization of the class action, nor does it decide any substantive question of liability or damages. Instead, the Court is seized of a “Demande pour permission de présenter une preuve appropriée” — a motion by the defendants seeking leave to file what they characterize as appropriate evidence at the authorization stage. This motion was filed on 22 December 2025. The focus of the judgment is therefore narrow and procedural: whether the defendants may place a specific package of evidence before the Court in advance of, and for use at, the hearing on authorization of the class action under articles 574 and 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.).

Description of the defendants’ proposed evidence

The defendants asked the Court for leave to file the sworn declaration of Jonathan Hamel, identified as exhibit Uber-1, together with a series of screenshots of the Uber ecosystem, filed as exhibits JH-1 A to JH-10. This material is collectively referred to in the judgment as the “Preuve” (the Evidence). According to the Court, the content of this evidence bears on the technological functioning of the defendants’ platform. In particular, it appears designed to explain how the Uber Eats interface presents information related to grocery orders, including how items, fees, and other monetary components are displayed to consumers at various stages of the transaction. From the Court’s reasoning, it is clear that the Evidence is intended to respond to factual allegations in the authorization application, and to clarify aspects of the user experience that may be central to defining both the alleged wrongful conduct and the limits of any potential class of affected users.

Position of the plaintiff on the evidentiary motion

The plaintiff did not oppose the filing of the Evidence as such. She expressly stated that she did not contest the defendants’ motion to file the sworn declaration of Jonathan Hamel and the related screenshots, but did so expressly “sous réserve” — reserving her right to challenge both the relevance and the probative value of this material at the authorization hearing itself. In other words, she agreed the documents could form part of the record but maintained full liberty to argue that they should carry little or no weight when the Court applies the criteria in article 575 C.p.c. for class action authorization. This stance reflects a procedural compromise: avoiding a fight over admissibility at this stage, while preserving all arguments on substance and evidentiary weight for the main authorization hearing.

Court’s analysis of appropriate evidence under articles 574 and 575 C.p.c.

The Court underscores that it is not bound by the parties’ agreement concerning the filing of evidence. Even where both sides are prepared to accept the Evidence into the record, the judge must independently determine whether the material constitutes “preuvé appropriée” — appropriate evidence — within the framework of articles 574 and 575 C.p.c. The judge emphasizes that this power is particularly important in the class action context, where the authorization stage is meant to be a screening mechanism rather than a full trial on the merits. After reviewing the proffered Evidence, the Court concludes that it does fill a “vide factuel” — a factual gap — in the authorization application, specifically regarding the technological functioning of the Uber platform. The judge notes that this information could be relevant not only to understanding the plaintiff’s allegations but also to “circonscrire le groupe proposé,” that is, to delineating and precisely defining the contours of the proposed class. On that basis, the Court is satisfied that the Evidence is both appropriate and potentially useful in applying the statutory authorization criteria.

Outcome of the evidentiary motion and implications

In the result, the Court grants the defendants’ motion. It authorizes the defendants, while preserving the plaintiff’s right to later contest relevance and probative value under article 575 C.p.c., to file as appropriate evidence the sworn declaration of Jonathan Hamel (Uber-1) together with the attached screenshots JH-1 A to JH-10. The judgment specifies that this is done “le tout sans frais de justice,” meaning no costs are awarded against either party on this motion. Substantively, the defendants are the successful party in this particular procedural ruling, as their request to place their technological evidence before the Court is allowed. However, this success is limited to the procedural question of admissibility of “Preuve appropriée” at the authorization stage and does not resolve whether the class action will be authorized, nor whether any liability exists. No damages, compensation, or quantified costs are ordered in favour of any party in this decision, and the total monetary award or costs in favour of the successful party cannot be determined from this judgment, because none are granted.