Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and definition of the settlement-only class for athletes alleging psychological abuse, neglect and harassment within Canada Artistic Swimming’s national team programs.
• Procedural validity of modifying the already modified originating application for authorization of a class action and representative status.
• Criteria for authorizing a class action for settlement purposes only, including whether collective treatment is appropriate under Québec class action rules.
• Reliance on and sufficiency of the Settlement Agreement, Transaction and Release, including the framework for determining class members’ entitlement to compensation.
• Safeguards governing notice, opt-out rights, and objection rights to ensure class members’ procedural fairness in the settlement approval process.
• Court control over the claim administration process, including the appointment and immunity of the Claim Administrator absent prior judicial authorization.

Facts of the case

The case arises from allegations by a group of former national team athletes against Canada Artistic Swimming / Natation Artistique Canada, the national governing body for artistic swimming in Canada. The petitioners – Chloé Isaac, Gabrielle Boisvert, Erin Willson, Sion Ormond, Gabriella Brisson, Rebecca Harrower and Meaghan Lapierre – claim that, while training with the national teams, they and other athletes were subjected to psychological abuse, neglect and/or harassment by coaches and staff. The alleged misconduct is said to have occurred during a lengthy period, between January 1, 2010 and June 14, 2023, and in the highly structured, high-performance training environment run by the respondent. The athletes seek to proceed not as individual plaintiffs, but collectively, on behalf of a defined group of similarly affected national team athletes.

Procedural history and class definition

The proceeding is brought in the Superior Court of Québec, District of Montréal, as a proposed class action under Québec’s class action regime. The petitioners initially filed an originating application for authorization to institute a class action and to obtain representative status. That pleading was already modified once. By the time of this judgment, the petitioners sought permission to further amend the modified originating application, resulting in what the Court describes as the “Re-Modified Originating Application for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Obtain the Status of Representative.” The Court grants leave to make those amendments. The heart of the case is an application for authorization of a class action for settlement purposes only. Rather than pursuing adversarial certification and a contested trial on the merits, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement, Transaction and Release, which is placed before the Court with supporting schedules. On this basis, the petitioners apply for authorization of the class action solely to allow implementation and court supervision of the proposed settlement. The Court defines the settlement class as: all individuals who trained with the national swimming teams of Canada Artistic Swimming and who were subjected to psychological abuse, neglect and/or harassment by coaches and/or staff between January 1, 2010 and June 14, 2023, with an equivalent class definition provided in French. This definition links membership to both an institutional relationship (training with the national teams) and exposure to specified forms of misconduct (psychological abuse, neglect or harassment by coaches or staff) during the relevant period.

Settlement-only authorization and representative status

A key feature of the decision is that the authorization is expressly “for settlement purposes only.” The Court is not adjudicating liability or awarding damages on the merits. Instead, it is facilitating a negotiated resolution between the petitioners and the respondent. In this context, the judge considers the petitioners’ request that they be granted representative status to act for the defined class for settlement purposes. The Court grants this request and designates all seven named petitioners as representative plaintiffs, but again, only for purposes of implementing and supervising the settlement. The Court also identifies a single principal common question of fact and law to be dealt with collectively: whether the class members have established a right to compensation under the terms of the Settlement Agreement executed by the parties. This framing makes clear that, at the settlement-approval stage, the key legal issue is not generalized tort liability in the abstract, but entitlement to compensation specifically within the contractual and procedural structure set out by the Settlement Agreement.

Notice, opt-out rights and objections

The judgment also addresses procedural fairness for absent class members. The Court approves the form, content and notification process of the pre-approval notice to class members, which is intended to inform them of the proposed settlement, their rights, and the upcoming approval hearing. To make this notice effective, the respondent is ordered to provide the petitioners’ lawyers with a list of email addresses for all athletes who trained on its national teams during the relevant period, and the petitioners in turn must provide the Claim Administrator with email addresses of class members as needed to implement the settlement and distribute the pre-approval notice. Class members retain autonomy through opt-out and objection mechanisms. Any class member who wishes to exclude themselves from the class action may do so by delivering a written opt-out notice no later than 30 days after notification of the pre-approval notice, in accordance with the procedures described in that notice and the applicable court directives in Montréal. Class members who do not opt out will be bound by any future judgment on the class action. Class members also have the right to object to court approval of the Settlement Agreement. Any objection must be submitted in the manner set out in the pre-approval notice, no later than 20 days prior to the settlement approval hearing. This structure ensures that class members are informed, can step out of the class if they wish, or can participate by raising objections before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement.

Appointment and control of the Claim Administrator

The Court appoints VeritaGlobal as the Claim Administrator to carry out the tasks assigned to it in the Settlement Agreement. In large class settlements, a third-party administrator typically manages claims, verifies eligibility, implements distribution protocols and coordinates communications. Here, the Court goes further in protecting the administrator and safeguarding the orderly implementation of the settlement. It declares that no person may institute an action against the Claim Administrator or any of its employees, agents, partners, associates, representatives, successors or beneficiaries regarding the Settlement Agreement, its administration or execution of the judgment, unless they obtain prior authorization from the Court. This requirement centralizes control in the Superior Court and is intended to prevent satellite litigation that could undermine or delay the implementation of the settlement scheme. At the same time, it preserves judicial oversight as a safeguard against potential abuses or errors in administration.

Conditional nature of the judgment and next steps

The judgment emphasizes that its effect is conditional upon the survival of the Settlement Agreement. It expressly provides that the authorization judgment will be declared null and void if the Settlement Agreement is terminated in accordance with its terms and following a request to the Court. In other words, the class action’s settlement-only authorization hinges on the continued existence of the underlying settlement contract. If the settlement collapses, the special settlement-only structure disappears and the parties may need to revert to more conventional class action procedures. The Court schedules the hearing for the application for approval of the Settlement Agreement and approval of the post-approval notices for May 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. at the Montréal courthouse. It is at this later hearing that the Court will examine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement and, if satisfied, will issue a final approval order. Until then, the settlement’s effectiveness remains contingent.

Outcome and monetary consequences

From a procedural perspective, the petitioners are the successful party in this decision. The Court grants their application to further modify the originating application, authorizes the class action for settlement purposes only, approves the pre-approval notice, appoints the Claim Administrator, and sets the framework for opt-outs and objections. Although the respondent consents to the relief sought, the judgment nonetheless implements the petitioners’ requested procedural and settlement framework. However, this judgment does not determine liability on the merits and does not fix any specific amount of damages, settlement funds, or costs. Any compensation payable to class members will flow from the Settlement Agreement, which is referenced but not quantified in the judgment, and remains subject to later court approval. The Court also specifies that the judgment is rendered without costs, except in the event of contestation. As a result, while the petitioners can be regarded as procedurally successful at this stage, the total monetary award, including any damages, costs or other financial relief in their favour or in favour of the class, cannot be determined from this judgment alone.