Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and definition of the class, including temporal cut-off (up to 18 May 2020) and exclusion of purchasers bound by arbitration clauses, in light of later factual allegations and exhibits.
• Relevance and admissibility of post-cut-off conduct by Tesla to support a potential award of punitive damages, particularly Tesla’s behaviour after any alleged statutory or contractual breaches.
• Permissible extent of amendments to the class action pleadings after authorization, and whether new allegations impermissibly transform or expand the authorized recourse.
• Differentiation between “Premium” (or “haut de gamme”) connectivity services and standard/base connectivity, and whether allegations about base connectivity remain connected to the authorized issues.
• Application of Quebec civil-procedure standards on striking allegations and withdrawing exhibits, including the high threshold for interlocutory exclusion of arguably relevant facts in a class action.
• Determination that certain statistical evidence (number of Tesla vehicles registered in Québec as of 31 December 2022) is irrelevant to the certified class and must be struck, while other contested allegations are left for assessment at trial.

Facts of the case
Jean-François Bellerose brings a proposed class action in the Superior Court of Québec, Class Actions Chamber, against Les Véhicules Tesla Canada in relation to connectivity services attached to Tesla vehicles sold or ordered in Québec. The case concerns Tesla’s “Premium” connectivity service, originally provided at no additional cost with certain vehicles, and the later imposition of fees or termination of that service. The plaintiff alleges that Tesla engaged in prohibited business practices, charged consumers amounts not stipulated in their contracts, failed to provide goods and services conforming to the contract, and abusively modified contracts unilaterally. The class action arises in a consumer and contractual context under Québec’s Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Code of Québec.
On 13 September 2023, the Superior Court authorizes Bellerose to institute a class action in damages against Tesla. The authorized questions include whether Tesla could unilaterally terminate or alter connectivity services by charging fees, whether the connectivity fees are illegal, whether Tesla committed prohibited practices, whether Tesla’s conduct was abusive, and whether members may claim compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, punitive damages of $2,500,000, although at this stage that amount is only claimed and not awarded.
Following authorization, on 27 November 2023 the plaintiff files an originating application, which is later amended on 16 December 2024 following a decision on an exception declinatory. That later decision refines the definition of the class into two sub-groups: purchasers of new Tesla vehicles with Premium connectivity provided free of charge between 1 July 2018 and 18 May 2020, and purchasers of used Tesla vehicles in Québec with Premium connectivity provided free of charge. In each sub-group, members either were billed for connectivity fees to continue using the service or had their connectivity service terminated. The class excludes non-consumer purchasers bound by arbitration clauses who did not validly opt out of arbitration within 30 days of signing.
The authorized class action therefore centres on whether Tesla was entitled to change or terminate the originally free Premium connectivity service and impose fees, and whether these changes breached contractual and statutory obligations towards Québec consumers who purchased or ordered qualifying Tesla vehicles within the defined period.

Alleged practices and contractual framework
The plaintiff’s allegations focus on Tesla’s practice of initially offering Premium connectivity free of charge with certain vehicles and then charging for continuation of that service or terminating it. This is framed as a failure to supply a service conforming to the contract and as a prohibited commercial practice. The pleadings highlight the absence of clear contractual language at the time of purchase stating that fees would eventually be imposed for Premium connectivity or that the free service was time-limited. The plaintiff also points to Tesla’s subsequent changes to connectivity terms, including alterations to “standard” or base connectivity and the introduction or clarification of a maximum free-period of eight years from the vehicle’s first sale.
Although the central focus of the class action is the Premium (or “haut de gamme”) connectivity service, the amended application describes Tesla’s broader pattern of modifying connectivity terms, including both base and Premium services. The plaintiff alleges that Tesla repeatedly altered the “free” connectivity parameters, including revising the length of the free period and the content of the connectivity services, without clear prior disclosure at the time of sale. These practices are invoked to support the claim that Tesla’s conduct was abusive and that an award of punitive damages is warranted under consumer protection legislation and the Civil Code.

Procedural developments and related decisions
The first major decision, in September 2023, grants authorization of the class action and frames the common issues to be tried, confirming that the alleged unilateral modification and charging for Premium connectivity services can be addressed collectively. A subsequent decision on an exception declinatory, in 2024, refines and clarifies the class definition, splitting it into two sub-groups (new and used vehicle purchasers) and including explicit exclusions for those bound by arbitration clauses who are not consumers or who did not opt out of arbitration in time. These early decisions establish the temporal boundaries of the class (up to 18 May 2020) and the services at issue (Premium connectivity), while confirming that the claim may proceed on a collective basis.
After these steps, the plaintiff files a modified originating application that includes several new or clarified allegations and exhibits. Among them are: a statistical document (P-3) showing how many Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles were registered in Québec as of 31 December 2022; references to Tesla’s later changes to “standard” connectivity, particularly the introduction of an eight-year free-period; and broader allegations about Tesla’s pattern of modifying connectivity terms (both base and Premium) and of failing to advise members of time limitations on free connectivity.

Tesla’s motion to strike allegations and exhibits
In the 2026 judgment, Tesla brings a motion seeking to strike specific paragraphs from the amended originating application and to withdraw two exhibits (P-3 and P-13). Tesla argues that some of the impugned allegations concern facts beyond the temporal scope of the class definition (i.e., after 18 May 2020) or relate to services other than Premium connectivity, notably standard or base connectivity. Tesla’s position is that such allegations exceed the authorized recourse and are therefore irrelevant or improper.
The paragraphs targeted include: a statistical allegation about the number of Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles registered in Québec as of 31 December 2022 (supported by exhibit P-3); allegations about Tesla’s later unilateral modifications to standard connectivity, including limiting free standard connectivity to eight years from first sale and the absence of such limits in members’ contracts (supported in part by exhibit P-13); and a series of allegations describing Tesla’s failure to advise members that both base connectivity and Premium or “haut de gamme” services would only be free for a limited period, Tesla’s repeated unilateral modifications to the period of “free” connectivity or its content, and Tesla’s ongoing conduct affecting the length of the free-period (now set at eight years for all vehicles from Tesla’s sale or transfer date).
Tesla contends that these paragraphs improperly broaden the action beyond Premium connectivity and beyond the temporal limits fixed in the class definition. It also argues that post-cut-off conduct should not be part of the record, since the group is defined only up to 18 May 2020.

Legal framework for striking allegations in class actions
The court begins by recalling the general principles governing motions to strike allegations and withdraw exhibits in Québec civil procedure. An allegation must be relevant to the dispute in order for evidence of that fact to be admissible, and relevance is measured by the connection between the alleged fact and the issues to be resolved. The Court of Appeal has held that a fact is relevant if it contributes to proving a fact in issue or may assist the court in assessing the probative value of testimony, and that in cases of doubt courts should err on the side of allowing the party to put forward the allegation and attempt to prove it.
In more recent jurisprudence, including a 2024 Court of Appeal decision, the court stresses that judges must exercise prudence at a preliminary stage when asked to strike allegations or exclude evidence. Such motions should only be granted in clear cases where the absence of relevance is manifest. Facts pleaded are to be taken as true at this stage, and if doubt remains as to the relevance of an allegation or exhibit to the resolution of the dispute or to the appreciation of evidence, the question should be left to the trial judge. This approach promotes the efficient conduct of proceedings and avoids prematurely shutting out potentially important evidence.
In the specific context of a class action, the Court of Appeal has reiterated that the evaluation of probative value and admissibility belongs primarily to the trial judge. It has cautioned against using motions to strike to pre-empt the trial judge’s role, especially where the impugned material may help illuminate context or support the common questions. At the same time, modifications to pleadings after authorization cannot be used to circumvent or effectively rewrite the authorization judgment. Amendments must remain implicit or accessory to the issues already authorized; they must not introduce a new or qualitatively different recourse. A party cannot, for example, re-introduce conclusions refused at authorization, plead facts with no bearing on the outcome of the authorized class action, or create an entirely new claim.

Analysis of post-cut-off facts and punitive damages
Regarding facts occurring after the 18 May 2020 cut-off in the class definition, the court examines their role in relation to the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Drawing on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Richard v. Time Inc., the judge notes that a mere breach of a consumer-protection rule does not automatically justify punitive damages. The court must assess the merchant’s overall conduct, including its attitude after discovering or committing the violation. Attempts by the merchant to diligently correct the problem may weigh against a punitive award, whereas a continuing pattern of disregard for consumers may support such an award.
On that basis, the court concludes that Tesla’s behaviour after the alleged violations—such as how it adjusted connectivity terms or treated consumers after the relevant period—could be important to determining whether punitive damages are appropriate. Post-cut-off conduct may thus be relevant even though it falls outside the formal temporal boundaries of the class. Consequently, the judge declines to strike certain allegations and exhibits that relate to Tesla’s later modification of connectivity terms, because these could help the trial judge evaluate whether punitive damages are warranted and, more broadly, understand Tesla’s global conduct over time.

Treatment of the specific contested allegations and exhibits
Applying the above principles, the court distinguishes among the contested paragraphs. First, it deals with paragraph 11 and exhibit P-3, which present statistics on how many Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles were registered in Québec as of 31 December 2022. The judge holds that this material has no meaningful connection to the authorized class action. Authorization has already been granted, which implies that the class is sufficiently numerous under article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The number of Tesla vehicles registered in Québec more than two years after the class cut-off does not affect any issue to be decided. Moreover, the set of vehicles registered as of that date neither corresponds to nor matches the class; some owners fall within the class and others do not, and vice versa. Because there is a clear and manifest absence of relevance, the court strikes paragraph 11 and orders the withdrawal of exhibit P-3.
Next, the court turns to the allegations that refer to Tesla’s changes to standard or base connectivity, including the imposition of an eight-year free-period and subsequent fees. Tesla argues that the action concerns only Premium connectivity and that allegations about base connectivity fall outside the authorized recourse. The judge acknowledges that the core of the class action is indeed Premium connectivity, but finds that certain references to base connectivity can still be relevant. In particular, the court refuses to strike paragraphs 80 and 90 of the amended application. These paragraphs discuss Tesla’s failure to advise members that both base and high-end connectivity services would only be free for a limited time and its omission to disclose that a monthly subscription would be required to maintain connectivity, both base and Premium. The judge considers that these allegations, by explicitly referencing the high-end (Premium) service, may help illustrate how Tesla structured and communicated its connectivity offering, thereby shedding light on the alleged illegality or abusiveness of its conduct regarding Premium connectivity.
For paragraphs 78, 81, and 93, which relate more heavily to Tesla’s ongoing adjustments to the period of free base connectivity and the now-general eight-year limit, the court finds the situation less clear. These allegations are not straightforwardly tied to the central dispute about fees and termination of Premium connectivity. Nevertheless, they could help situate the broader context of Tesla’s relationship with its customers and its overall approach to connectivity terms. Crucially, they do not undermine or circumvent the authorization judgment: they do not alter the group definition, the nature of the claims, or the common issues, nor do they create a new cause of action. In these circumstances, the court applies the principle of prudence and defers the ultimate assessment of their probative value and admissibility to the trial judge.

Outcome and implications of the 2026 ruling
In its operative disposition, the Superior Court grants Tesla’s motion to strike allegations and withdraw exhibits in part only. The court orders that paragraph 11 of the amended originating application be struck and that exhibit P-3 (the document containing 2022 registration statistics) be withdrawn from the record, finding that both are plainly irrelevant to the certified class and the issues to be determined. For all other impugned paragraphs and for exhibit P-13, the court refuses to grant the requested relief at this preliminary stage. It emphasizes that allegations potentially bearing on punitive damages or on the broader context of Tesla’s conduct should be left to the trial judge to assess in terms of admissibility and weight. The court directs that costs (“frais de justice”) will follow, to be determined at a later stage.
Taken together with the earlier authorization and declinatory-exception decisions, the 2026 ruling confirms that the class action will proceed on the basis of the previously defined group and common questions, with most of the plaintiff’s expanded allegations left intact. Tesla is the partially successful party in this specific interlocutory judgment because it succeeds in striking a single paragraph and one exhibit, but the majority of its motion is denied or deferred, and the core of the class action remains unchanged. As of this decision, however, there is no final determination on liability or damages, no punitive or compensatory amount has been granted, and even the court costs are left “to follow.” Accordingly, the total monetary award, including costs and damages, in favor of any party cannot yet be determined from the record of this judgment.