Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Temporary suspension of a proposed class action concerning allegedly unauthorized Amazon Prime subscriptions and difficult cancellation processes in Quebec
• Procedural question of whether a stay of proceedings should be granted under article 156 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow serious settlement discussions and mediation
• Coordination of multiple parallel class actions against Amazon across Canada (Québec, Ontario and British Columbia) raising substantially similar consumer protection allegations
• Assessment of whether continuing to prepare the case for authorization and trial would lead to unnecessary or disproportionate use of judicial and party resources while settlement is being explored
• Protection of the best interests of proposed class members by favouring efficient case management and potential national resolution before full litigation costs are incurred
• Determination that a time-limited stay, without costs, is appropriate while the parties pursue mediation and negotiations, with leave to return to court to lift the stay if circumstances change

Background and facts

Pierre Gaudreault and Léa Gagnon filed an application in the Superior Court of Québec, Class Actions Chamber, seeking authorization to institute a class action against several Amazon entities: Amazon.com.ca, ULC, Amazon Technologies, Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc. They act on behalf of Québec residents who were allegedly signed up and billed for an Amazon Prime subscription without their fully informed consent. They also include in the proposed group those residents who encountered unreasonable obstacles when trying to cancel their Amazon Prime subscription. The case is therefore rooted in consumer protection concerns about how online subscription services are presented, consented to, and terminated in the Québec marketplace. The judgment in question, however, does not rule on liability, damages, or the merits of those consumer allegations. Instead, it resolves a procedural request by the plaintiffs for a temporary suspension of the proceedings in order to facilitate settlement discussions.

Parallel class actions in other provinces

The Court notes that three other substantially similar class actions against Amazon are pending in other Canadian jurisdictions. One proposed class action is in Ontario (Pill v. Amazon.com, Inc. and others), while two are before the courts in British Columbia (Soni v. Amazon.com.ca ULC, et al. and MacPherson v. Amazon.com.ca ULC, et al.). Each of these parallel proceedings concerns Amazon’s practices relating to Amazon Prime enrolment and cancellation, and they raise comparable issues about consumer consent and barriers to cancellation. Because the Québec case is not isolated, the parties are attempting to coordinate their efforts nationally. A mediation involving the parties to these parallel Canadian class actions is already planned for May 2026. The Québec plaintiffs therefore ask that their own action be stayed temporarily so settlement can be explored efficiently and in step with the other jurisdictions.

Request for a temporary stay of proceedings

On 10 October 2025, as later amended on 19 November 2025, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking authorization to bring a class action on behalf of Québec residents affected by the alleged Amazon Prime subscription practices. In the judgment under review, they additionally request that the Superior Court suspend the Québec proceeding until 30 September 2026. Their objective is to have enough time to pursue a potential negotiated resolution, including the scheduled mediation, before the parties and the Court incur the significant costs and effort associated with preparing for an authorization hearing and possible trial. The defendants, namely the various Amazon entities, do not oppose the request for a temporary stay. This procedural posture means that the Court’s role is to assess whether the statutory conditions for a suspension are met and whether granting a stay is compatible with the interests of justice and the best interests of the proposed class members.

Legal framework for a stay of proceedings

The Court grounds its analysis in article 156 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure. That provision authorizes the Court to suspend a proceeding for a determined period if it is persuaded that the case is likely to be resolved amicably, and that the efforts and resources required to continue preparing the file for hearing would be unnecessary or disproportionate in the circumstances. The Court must also be satisfied that the settlement efforts are being pursued seriously. Article 156 further provides that a party may later ask the Court to lift the suspension if the reasons justifying it cease to exist. Applying this framework, the judge considers whether the existence of coordinated national settlement discussions, including a scheduled mediation with parties from parallel Canadian class actions, justifies pausing the Québec proceeding at this stage. The Court concludes that the required conditions are met. The case genuinely appears susceptible of an amicable resolution, the stay is time-limited, and ongoing preparation for an authorization hearing during intensive settlement efforts would risk wasting significant judicial and party resources.

Policy terms or contractual clauses

The judgment itself is narrowly focused on the procedural question of a temporary stay. It does not reproduce, analyze, or rule upon any specific insurance policy terms, contractual provisions, or detailed clauses governing Amazon Prime subscriptions. Instead, it briefly describes the underlying allegations in general terms—namely that Québec residents were allegedly enrolled and billed for Amazon Prime without informed consent and that unreasonable barriers were allegedly encountered when attempting to cancel. The Court reserves any examination of the substantive legal framework and any clauses at issue for later stages of the litigation, which will only become necessary if the case is not resolved by settlement and mediation.

Ruling and outcome

Having found that the statutory criteria under article 156 are satisfied and that a time-limited stay aligns with the best interests of the proposed class members, the Court grants the plaintiffs’ request. The judge orders that the Québec class action proceeding be suspended until 30 September 2026, in both French and English in the operative part of the judgment. The order also expressly authorizes any party to return to the Court for matters relating to the case, including a request to lift the stay if the circumstances change or if settlement efforts cease to justify a suspension. The judgment specifies that this is done without legal costs, meaning there is no award of costs or other monetary relief in favour of either side at this stage. In this procedural decision, the successful parties are the plaintiffs, who obtain the temporary stay they requested; however, there is no determination on liability or damages, and no total monetary award, costs, or damages are granted or ordered in their favour, as the judgment is rendered “without legal costs” and does not fix any sum for compensation or fees.