Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and limits of evidence a defendant may adduce at the class action authorization stage under articles 574–575 C.C.P., without transforming the process into a full pre-trial on the merits.
• Admissibility of Apple’s public privacy and Siri-related statements and policies (including French and English versions, and later-dated policies) to test representations, consent, prescription, knowledge, and jurisdiction in an open-ended national class period.
• Use of sampled privacy policies and a “Family Privacy Disclosure” page to address alleged unlawful collection, use and sharing of Siri recordings, particularly for children and minors.
• Role and permissible scope of an affidavit (by Apple’s Privacy Program Manager) as neutral, objective evidence to introduce documentary exhibits, versus contentious factual proof reserved for the merits.
• Plaintiff’s attempted right to cross-examine the affiant at authorization, and the court’s case-management discretion to limit or structure such examinations under article 158 C.C.P.
• Conditional leave to file Apple’s exhibits, requiring clarification of when and how policies and statements were made available and whether class members had the opportunity to consent, with costs left to follow the ultimate outcome of the case.

Background and facts of the case

Plaintiff Ilana Krief seeks authorization to institute a national class action in the Quebec Superior Court (Class Action Chamber) against Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc. (together, “Apple”). The proposed class consists of all persons in Canada who purchased, owned, used or possessed an Apple Siri Device, and members of their households, whose conversations were allegedly obtained by Apple and/or shared with third parties without their consent from at least October 12, 2011, to the present. The class period is drafted as open-ended, continuing up to the time of the proceedings. The core allegation is that Siri users did not consent to Apple recording or disclosing conversations when the wake phrase “Hey, Siri” had not been uttered and no button had been pressed on the device. In essence, the plaintiff claims that Apple captured and shared ambient or inadvertent voice recordings, including those of children, in breach of privacy, consumer, and potentially child-privacy norms.
This judgment does not decide whether those allegations are well-founded. Instead, it addresses Apple’s motion for leave to file “relevant evidence” at the authorization stage of the class action under articles 574 and 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.). Apple argues that the Amended Application for Authorization fails to meet the statutory criteria, and that it must be allowed to adduce certain documents and an affidavit to properly present its arguments at the authorization hearing.

Legal framework governing authorization and relevant evidence

The court begins by situating the motion within Quebec’s specific class action regime. A class action may only proceed once a representative plaintiff has obtained prior authorization from the court because the representative is not expressly mandated by each class member. The authorization (or “screening”) stage is designed to weed out plainly frivolous cases that do not meet the criteria in article 575 C.C.P., while reserving full evidentiary debate and fact-finding for the merits. Article 574 C.C.P. requires that an application for authorization set out the facts on which it is based, the nature of the action, and the group on whose behalf the person intends to act. It provides that the application is contested orally and that “the court may allow relevant evidence to be submitted.” The judge summarizes well-established principles from the case law on when and how evidence may be filed at authorization. Leave of the court is required; party agreement does not bind the court. The evidence must be limited and proportionate to what is essential and indispensable to assess the article 575 criteria, having regard to proportionality and efficient conduct of proceedings. The court must avoid turning authorization into a pre-trial: the allegations in the motion are presumed true and the court should not step into the role of ultimate trier of fact. At the same time, where defendants seek to file evidence, the court is not judging the quality of their future arguments; it merely decides whether they may have the information needed to present those arguments. Sworn statements at authorization should generally attest to neutral and objective facts, not controversial questions better left to the merits, and the burden to show the utility and necessity of the evidence rests on the party seeking to file it. Within that framework, courts have repeatedly allowed evidence such as contracts relevant to class members’ claims, material describing a defendant’s business and regulatory environment, documents that supplement incomplete exhibits, evidence that on its face shows the obvious falsity of certain allegations, and material relevant to a challenge to the Superior Court’s jurisdiction.

Apple’s public statements on Siri privacy protections

The first category of evidence concerns Apple’s public statements about Siri privacy. Plaintiff had already filed the English version of a public statement dated August 28, 2019, titled “Improving Siri’s privacy protections.” Apple sought to file a version that included the French text. The judge finds that this simply completes an exhibit already in the record and is germane to the plaintiff’s allegations regarding Apple’s “representations”, “assurances” and “promises.” The court concludes that this bilingual statement is relevant and may be filed as it helps contextualize what Apple publicly told users about Siri recordings and privacy safeguards, a central issue in determining whether class members were misled or adequately informed.

Siri, Dictation & Privacy policies and Improve Siri terms

The second set of exhibits covers various versions, over the proposed class period, of two types of Siri-related privacy policies. One is the “Siri, Dictation & Privacy” policy, which sets out Siri’s default behaviour for users who do not opt in to “Improve Siri and Dictation.” The other is a distinct “Improve Siri and Dictation & Privacy” policy, which applies to users who opt in to help develop and improve Siri by permitting Apple to store and have employees review a sample of their audio interactions with Siri. Apple explains that these policies, in their different iterations, describe what data is collected, stored, and potentially reviewed, the privacy protections that apply, and the choices and controls that users have. The court notes that similar policies, terms, and conditions have been admitted as relevant evidence in other class proceedings, especially where plaintiffs attack a company’s privacy representations and the nature of consent obtained. The plaintiff contests two later-dated versions on the ground that they were drafted and posted after the original authorization motion was filed on January 3, 2025. The judge rejects this objection, emphasizing the open-ended nature of the proposed class period: since the class extends to the present, policies that came into force after the motion was filed remain relevant to the assessment of alleged ongoing practices and representations.

Later public statement on Siri privacy commitments

Apple also seeks to file a later public statement titled “Our longstanding privacy commitment with Siri,” in English (dated January 9, 2025) and French (dated January 8, 2025). Although recent, the judge finds them relevant for the same reason: they are part of Apple’s evolving public narrative about Siri’s privacy protections during an open-ended class period. The statements may inform whether Apple’s disclosures and assurances to consumers, including Canadian users, were adequate or potentially misleading for at least a portion of the class period.

General privacy policies and their role in the allegations

Another important category of evidence consists of representative samples of Apple’s general privacy policies covering the proposed class period. These privacy policies describe how Apple collects, uses, and shares personal data, matters that lie at the heart of the plaintiff’s allegations about unauthorized Siri recordings and data sharing. Plaintiff herself had filed Apple’s privacy policy as of January 31, 2025, which the judge treats as acknowledgment of the relevance of such documents. As with the Siri-specific policies, the plaintiff objects to a later-dated sample on timing grounds, but the court dismisses this for the same reason related to the open-ended class period. Apple acknowledges that the samples do not cover every day of the entire timeframe, but says they are filed in part to support a prescription (limitation) argument and to respond to plaintiff’s claim that users lacked knowledge of the relevant practices. The court accepts their relevance in light of those articulated purposes.

Evidence concerning Apple Canada’s domicile and class scope

Apple further wishes to file a copy of its statement of information from Quebec’s Enterprise Register, showing that Apple Canada Inc. is not domiciled in Quebec. Apple argues that this bears on the proper scope of the proposed national class, including whether it is appropriate to include class members from outside Quebec in a proceeding before the Quebec Superior Court. The judge notes that evidence directed to the Superior Court’s jurisdiction, or lack thereof, is admissible as relevant evidence at authorization. The plaintiff does not contest the filing of this exhibit. Its presence in the record will allow Apple to argue jurisdictional or class-scope restrictions at the screening stage without turning that debate into a full merits trial.

Child privacy and the Family Privacy Disclosure page

The plaintiff alleges that Apple recorded and retained voice data from children, asserting that this violates “child privacy laws” and raises issues about minors’ interactions with Siri devices. One of the common questions proposed is whether Siri Devices record the conversations of minors who interact with them. In response, Apple seeks to file its “Family Privacy Disclosure for Children” webpage, which describes privacy parameters for child accounts, including how information is used and shared. Notably, the plaintiff’s own privacy exhibit includes a link to this family disclosure page, which reinforces its relevance. The judge accepts that this page has a direct bearing on Apple’s alleged handling of children’s data and on the legal assessment of consent, disclosure, and compliance with child-privacy norms.

The affidavit of Apple’s Privacy Program Manager and cross-examination issues

To introduce the foregoing documents, Apple relies on the sworn statement of Kirsten Nothstine, a Privacy Program Manager at Apple Inc. The affidavit is presented as limited in scope: it identifies where certain documents can be found and, in some instances, when they became available. The court finds that it relates to neutral and objective facts suitable for authorization-stage evidence, and notes that the affidavit was prepared in part because plaintiff had insisted that such a sworn statement was necessary to file Apple’s exhibits. Plaintiff’s counsel then argued that he had an absolute right to cross-examine on any sworn statement authorized as relevant evidence and that the examination could extend to all facts relevant to the matter. The Court of Appeal, however, has declined to endorse such a broad interpretation. It has held that article 158 C.C.P. gives the court case-management discretion to determine whether examinations are warranted and, if so, under what conditions. That approach has since been followed, including in managing cross-examinations on affidavits admitted as relevant evidence under article 574 C.C.P. Against that backdrop, the judge asked plaintiff’s counsel to specify the topics on which he wished to cross-examine Ms. Nothstine. Counsel indicated that, in his view, the public statements, policies, and family privacy disclosure page were incomplete absent evidence specifying: the exact period during which each document was available to potential class members; how each document was sent or made available; and whether class members consented to or had the opportunity to consent to the content in question. Counsel also pointed out that the policies in the record were only a sample and that gaps remained in the class period. Apple accepted that the policies were a sample and explained that they were primarily filed to support limitation and knowledge arguments. The court offered to authorize a written examination on the limited subjects counsel identified, leaving it to plaintiff to decide whether to use that mechanism. Plaintiff’s counsel declined and withdrew his request to examine the affiant altogether. The judge formally notes this withdrawal in the operative portion of the order.

Conditions placed on Apple’s ability to file documentary evidence

Despite the withdrawal of the cross-examination request, the judge shares plaintiff’s concern that the public statements, policies, and family privacy disclosure page are only truly relevant if the court can ascertain when and how they were made available and whether class members had the opportunity to consent. Consequently, authorization to file those exhibits is granted subject to a condition: Ms. Nothstine’s sworn statement must be amended to add, for each of the public statements, the Siri and privacy policies, and the family privacy page, specific particulars concerning (1) the exact period when each was available to potential class members, (2) how each was sent to or made available to them, and (3) whether they had the opportunity to consent or not to the document in question. Once amended accordingly, her affidavit will neutralize uncertainty about the temporal and practical reach of these documents, while still avoiding a full merits-level dispute. The court thus strikes a balance between allowing Apple to file useful, limited evidence and preserving the summary, non-intrusive character of the authorization screening.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

In the result, the Superior Court authorizes Apple to file Exhibits R-1 through R-14 as relevant evidence at the authorization stage, with the condition that Exhibit R-14 (Ms. Nothstine’s affidavit) be amended to specify the period of availability, mode of communication, and opportunity for consent regarding the key privacy-related exhibits. The court also records plaintiff’s counsel’s withdrawal of his request to cross-examine the affiant. On this procedural motion, Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc. are the successful parties, as their motion to adduce relevant evidence is granted, albeit with carefully crafted conditions. The judgment does not address or resolve the underlying privacy and consumer claims, nor does it rule on the ultimate authorization of the class action or the merits. Importantly, the court does not grant, quantify, or order any damages, compensation, or specific costs in this decision. It expressly provides that costs are “to follow suit,” meaning that any monetary award or costs allocation will depend on later outcomes. Accordingly, while Apple succeeds procedurally on this evidentiary motion, no total monetary award, damages, or fixed costs amount can be determined from this judgment.