Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial control over class counsel fees under article 593 Cpc and article 32 of the Loi sur le fonds d’aide aux actions collectives, including the requirement that fees be “just and reasonable” in light of risk and results.
• Application of the Code de déontologie des avocats, particularly article 102, to evaluate percentage-based fee agreements in class actions involving historic sexual assaults and institutional liability of a religious organization.
• Evidentiary challenges linked to decades-old sexual abuse claims, including reliance on testimonial proof, potential loss of evidence, the advanced age and fragile health of many class members, and difficulties proving knowledge or presumptions of knowledge of abuse by the religious institution.
• Consideration of the significant risk assumed by class counsel in financing more than 4,000 hours of work over nearly six years, with no guarantee of success, and the limited financial support provided by the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives.
• Evaluation of the social value and practical impact of the class action in providing access to justice for approximately 225 elderly victims who likely would not have pursued individual claims against a powerful religious institution.
• Reliance on the presumption of validity of percentage-fee agreements (25% plus taxes of each individual indemnity), and the court’s decision that the agreed percentage falls within the generally accepted range for class actions and is proportionate to the work, risk, and outcome achieved.

Background and parties

This case arises from a class action brought in Quebec Superior Court on behalf of victims of historic sexual assaults allegedly committed in the context of institutions run by Les Frères des écoles chrétiennes du Canada francophone. The representative plaintiff, first A.B. and later his brother C.D., acted on behalf of a group of former students and other individuals who claim to have suffered sexual abuse many decades ago in institutions linked to the defendant congregation. The proceeding is an “action collective” under the Code of Civil Procedure and is supported, in part, by the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives, which intervenes primarily on funding and cost issues rather than on liability. The judgment at issue does not re-decide liability or quantum of damages; it is a post-settlement decision focused on approval of class counsel’s fees and disbursements in the wake of a settlement that has already been approved in a separate judgment rendered the same day.

Nature of the class action

The underlying class action concerns allegations of sexual assaults committed against numerous individuals over a long period. Many of the members are of advanced age (with an average of 77 years) and have fragile health, making individual litigation particularly burdensome and risky. The alleged abuse occurred more than 30 years before the action was filed, so the case engages complex issues of civil liability, institutional responsibility and, at least initially, prescription (limitation periods). Before the 2020 amendment to article 2926.1 of the Civil Code of Québec, victims whose assaults dated back several decades had to prove “impossibilité en fait d’agir” (factual impossibility to act) to overcome prescription. While the 2020 change made sexual assault actions imprescriptible in many circumstances, defense counsel in various class actions signalled a potential constitutional challenge to article 2926.1 where the alleged perpetrator is deceased and the target of the claim is an institution, either for its own fault or as a commettante (vicarious liability). This created an additional overlay of risk and uncertainty in this case: absent settlement, many victims might have been forced to prove not only their abuse and resulting prejudice, but also their factual impossibility to act and possibly defend against constitutional arguments about the validity or scope of imprescriptibility. The defendant religious congregation contested the class proceeding up to the conclusion of the settlement and expressly preserved the right to contest individual claims under the settlement, with no admission of liability. Accordingly, although this judgment does not rehearse the evidence of abuse in detail, the context is one of complex, heavily contested institutional liability for sexual assaults, with evidentiary and legal uncertainties on prescription, knowledge of abuse, responsibility for the acts of individual aggressors, and the effect of long passage of time.

Procedural history and settlement structure

The class action was commenced on 13 June 2019. From the outset, the plaintiff’s lawyers, the firm now known as DWA s.e.n.c.r.l., assumed full financial responsibility for pursuing the litigation on a contingency basis. Over almost six years, they invested more than 4,000 hours of work without any guarantee of payment, and they anticipate at least another 1,000 hours in implementing the settlement and assisting class members in an adjudication process. The Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives contributed relatively modest funding in the form of advances on fees and disbursements, but the vast majority of the financial risk remained with class counsel. The settlement between C.D. (on behalf of the class) and Les Frères des écoles chrétiennes du Canada francophone is embodied in an “Entente de règlement, transaction et quittance” (R-1), with an addendum (R-2) executed on 6 February 2026 to update Annex 2 and reflect changes within the plaintiff’s law firm. The settlement provides for an individual recovery structure rather than a simple fixed common fund. Compensation will be determined through an adjudication process, with each member’s claim assessed individually by an adjudicator. The defendant preserved the right to contest individual claims, and no admission of liability is made. The court approved the substance of the settlement in a separate judgment; this decision is limited to the question of counsel’s fees, disbursements, and related administrative and reporting arrangements. At the hearing on 11 February 2026, approximately 25 class members were physically present in court and 59 participated via TEAMS. The representative C.D., the brother of the late A.B., and 12 class members addressed the court, unanimously supporting both the settlement and the requested fees. No member opposed the settlement or the fee request, and no one opted out.

Legal framework for approving counsel fees

The judge begins by setting out the legal framework governing approval of plaintiff counsel’s fees and disbursements in class actions. Under article 593 Cpc and article 32 of the Loi sur le fonds d’aide aux actions collectives, the court must approve the fees and disbursements to which class counsel are entitled, ensuring they are “justes et raisonnables” (fair and reasonable) in the circumstances. Relying heavily on the Court of Appeal’s decision in A.B. c. Clercs de Saint-Viateur du Canada and other authorities, the judge emphasizes several core principles. First, the fee agreement (convention d’honoraires) entered into between the representative plaintiff and class counsel benefits from a presumption of validity but does not bind the court. The court must nonetheless examine whether application of the agreement is just and reasonable for the class in light of the settlement. Second, the criteria for assessing reasonableness draw from article 102 of the Code de déontologie des avocats: experience, time and effort, difficulty of the matter, importance to the client, responsibility assumed, unusual or highly skilled services, result obtained, legal or regulatory fee scales, and third-party payments in relation to the mandate. These factors are non-exhaustive, and their relative weight varies with the case. Third, while there is an indicative range of 15–33% (and often 20–33.33%) of the settlement fund for plaintiff fees in class actions, the court cannot simply check whether the agreed percentage falls within that range. Each case requires a concrete analysis of the criteria and the risk undertaken. Fourth, the Court of Appeal has warned against over-emphasizing hourly time records in a percentage-fee context. Because percentage-based fees frequently exceed what would be generated by a straight hourly calculation, starting the analysis from hours worked and applying a mechanical multiplier often leads, almost inevitably, to the conclusion that the fees are “excessive.” Instead, the analysis should begin with the non-time-based factors—risk, complexity, responsibility, impact, and results. Only if the resulting fee appears unreasonable should the judge revert to hours and consider whether an adjustment is warranted using a multiplier. Finally, recent appellate authority (MacDuff c. Vacances Sunwing inc.) confirms that, in some cases, courts may consider the effective claims rate and the broader social value of the class action when evaluating the “result obtained,” and may structure fee approvals in stages, though such an approach is not mandatory.

Assessment of counsel’s experience, work, and risk

Turning to the specifics, the court reviews in detail the experience, time commitment, and responsibility assumed by DWA s.e.n.c.r.l. The firm specializes in representing victims of abuse of authority, particularly sexual assaults and police brutality, and has represented more than 2,000 victims of sexual abuse in over twenty class actions and numerous individual suits. The court notes that DWA has recognized expertise in class actions. In this matter, the lawyers and their team have devoted more than 4,000 hours to date and expect at least 1,000 additional hours during the implementation phase. They have financed salaries, professional fees, and all operational costs for nearly six years, with only limited assistance from the Fonds d’aide (39,500 $ in fee advances and 10,997.19 $ for disbursements). This financing has required them to carry the case without assured remuneration, using a contingency arrangement as their sole potential source of payment. Counsel have also borne a heavy non-financial responsibility. They have been the main point of contact for hundreds of vulnerable class members, many of whom disclosed their abuse for the first time in the context of this litigation. The work extended well beyond traditional legal research and pleadings: they listened to traumatic accounts, asked difficult and intimate questions, and provided ongoing updates, explanations, and reassurance. The court emphasizes that this emotional and relational dimension is particularly intense in sexual assault class actions and significantly burdens practitioners. On the strictly legal front, the case presented substantial difficulties. Proving decades-old assaults largely through testimony, with some victims unwilling or unable to testify, created a serious risk that many claims would not be established at trial. The advanced age and health conditions of many members raised the possibility that key witnesses might die before a judgment. Proving the direct knowledge or presumed knowledge of the congregation about the abuse often would have required reliance on indirect evidence and presumptions (such as frequency and pattern of assaults, prior denouncements, or hierarchical positions of alleged abusers), along with potential expert testimony on the structure and practices of religious organizations. The law concerning the liability of religious organizations for acts of their members remains relatively underdeveloped in Quebec civil law, adding to legal uncertainty. Against this backdrop, the congregation’s vigorous defense, the contested nature of authorization and merits, and the surrounding prescription and constitutional issues created a high-risk environment in which a loss at trial would have extinguished the rights of all group members.

Services requiring particular competence and the result obtained

The court underscores that class action practice itself demands a high level of procedural and strategic skill, and that class actions involving sexual assaults require even more: strong communication abilities, trauma-informed client handling, and effective collaboration with media to inform potential members. Counsel must ensure that group members understand the proceeding and their rights, and must help shape public information about the litigation in coordination with the court’s own notice orders. In this case, DWA delivered exceptional professional services, combining legal expertise with careful, empathetic interaction with elderly and traumatized victims. The outcome achieved is measured both in legal and social terms. Approximately 225 persons have registered in the class, with individual indemnities to be determined within ranges commonly awarded in similar sexual assault matters, subject to adjudicator approval. The settlement spares members the ordeal of a contested trial on painful facts and avoids further delays that would be especially harmful given their age and health. It also advances the core goals of class actions: access to justice and judicial economy. The judge notes that, without this proceeding and settlement, the majority of members would never have taken on the costs and emotional burden of individual litigation against such a powerful religious institution. The broad and vocal support from class members—reflected in 51 letters under seal supporting both the settlement and the 25% fee, and the positive oral interventions by the representative and multiple members at the hearing—strongly favours approval. No objections or opt-outs were recorded.

Fee agreements, disbursements, and final orders

The original and updated fee agreements between the representative plaintiffs (A.B. and later C.D.) and DWA provide for fees of 25% of amounts recovered, plus applicable taxes, whether by settlement or judgment. This percentage is squarely within the range typically approved in Quebec class actions (20–33%) and is expressly calibrated to the high risk and heavy personal, professional, and financial investment inherent in complex sexual assault class actions. The court notes that, in the event of failure, class counsel would receive nothing and would absorb all the sunk costs of years of work and funding. Moreover, contingent fee structures of this kind enable access to justice for plaintiffs who cannot afford hourly billing and create an economic incentive for lawyers to undertake difficult, risky, and socially important litigation. Applying the legal principles set out earlier, the judge concludes that, in light of the risk borne, the complex legal and factual issues, the substantial amount of work performed and still to be performed, the emotional and practical burden of supporting elderly survivors, and the strong positive outcome achieved, the 25% percentage fee plus taxes is fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the services rendered. The court therefore approves the fee as provided in paragraph 9 and Annex 2 of the settlement. On disbursements, the court reviews the documented amount of 10,997.19 $ and finds it not only justified but “excessivement minime” in relation to the scope and stakes of the matter. It approves reimbursement of disbursements and takes note of counsel’s commitment to reimburse to the Fonds d’aide both the 39,500 $ advanced for fees and the 10,997.19 $ advanced for disbursements, out of the fees and recoveries realized. Administratively, the court appoints DWA s.e.n.c.r.l. as administrator of the individual recovery fund, which is held in trust. DWA is ordered to deduct from each member’s individual indemnity the approved fees owed to counsel, starting on the tenth day following the adjudicator’s decision on that member’s claim and upon presentation of invoices. The defendant bears no responsibility for paying class counsel’s fees; all such payments are made from each member’s own compensation in accordance with the settlement. DWA must also provide periodic administration reports to the defendant, the court, and the Fonds d’aide, detailing the number of claims finalized, the amounts paid to members, the amounts retained by the Fonds, and any uncashed cheques. The parties are ordered to seek a closing judgment once the settlement’s administration is complete, and the court awards no judicial costs, as none were requested.

Ruling and overall outcome

In this post-settlement judgment on fees and disbursements, the court grants in full the part of C.D.’s application dealing with counsel’s remuneration and expenses. It orders that plaintiff’s counsel’s fees be set at 25% of each class member’s individual indemnity, plus taxes, and that disbursements of 10,997.19 $ be reimbursed, while requiring counsel to repay to the Fonds d’aide its earlier advances for both fees (39,500 $) and disbursements (10,997.19 $). The successful side in this judgment is therefore the representative plaintiff and his counsel, whose fee agreement and reimbursement claims are approved and whose role as administrator of the individual recovery fund is confirmed. However, because the underlying settlement decision is contained in a separate judgment and this text does not specify either the total global settlement amount or the eventual aggregate of individual payments, the total monetary award or overall damages payable to class members cannot be determined from this judgment alone.