Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court needed to finalize the wording of notices informing class members of a rate-increase class action against Vidéotron and Cogeco.

• Defendants objected to describing the rate increases as "illegal," leading the court to adjust the disputed language in the notice text.

• Plaintiff asked that references to the defendants' denial and intent to contest the action be removed from the notice, which the court granted.
• Distribution to former subscribers lacking an email address was disputed, with the parties divided between newspaper publication and individual mail.
• Timing for releasing the class member list was contested, and the court ordered release only after the exclusion period expires.
• An evidence-preservation order sought by the plaintiff was refused for lack of a supporting affidavit or evidence of risk.

Facts of the case

On December 5, 2025, the Superior Court authorized a class action on behalf of all persons whose monthly Vidéotron or Cogeco service fees were unilaterally increased since September 20, 2021, in contravention of section 11.2 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. This May 11, 2026 judgment, rendered by Justice Sylvain Lussier, resolves outstanding disputes about the notice to class members and related management measures: the final text of the notices, distribution to subscribers no longer with the defendants, disclosure of the class member list, and a request for an order to preserve evidence.

Statutory provisions and notice language at issue

Notice requirements are governed by article 576(2) C.p.c., which requires publication of a notice to members upon authorization, and the last paragraph of article 579 C.p.c., which lets the court determine the date, form, and mode of publication based on the nature of the action, the group's composition, and members' geographic situation. The parties disputed specific wording in the notice text. The defendants opposed language stating they had "illegally" increased tariffs, while the plaintiff sought removal of the statement that the defendants deny the allegations and intend to contest the action. The parties also disagreed on whether the notice should say the increases were made "en violation de"/"in violation of" the Consumer Protection Act or "en contravention des dispositions de"/"in contravention of the provisions of" it, the latter phrase matching the wording used in the original authorization judgment.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Drawing on the Code of Civil Procedure's legislative commentary and legal commentators Yves Lauzon and Anne-Julie Asselin, the court emphasized that notices exist to inform members adequately so they can decide whether to exclude themselves, and that individual notification should be favoured where feasible. Relying on Justice Pierre Nollet's reasoning in Salko c. Financière Banque Nationale inc., the court held that notices should focus on the substance of the claim rather than the parties' litigation positions, and ordered both the "illegal" characterization and the reference to the defendants' denial removed. The court also ordered the term "unilatéralement"/"unilaterally" added and adopted "en contravention des dispositions de"/"in contravention of the provisions of" to align with the authorization judgment. On distribution, the court reviewed a sworn statement from Cogeco's Francis Dupuis estimating approximately 440,000 current and former subscribers, with email addresses available for about 85% of them, and a postal-mailing cost of $102,426. The court found this cost was not a disproportionate burden and declined to order newspaper notice, citing its own prior reasoning in Asselin c. Desjardins Cabinet de services financiers inc. questioning the effectiveness of newspaper publication. On the member list, the court followed the approach of Justice Lukasz Granosik in Amram c. Rogers Communication inc., holding that the list is not needed until the exclusion period ends and the group's composition is fixed, since the defendants already hold their own subscriber lists. On evidence preservation, the court found no affidavit or prima facie evidence suggesting the defendants would fail to comply with their obligations under article 20 C.p.c., citing Jacques c. Ultramar ltée and appellate authority disfavouring vague orders that merely restate existing legal obligations.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court approved the long- and short-form notices in French and English, subject to the ordered wording changes, and directed that distribution occur within 75 days: by email where addresses are available, and by mail for current and former subscribers without one, with the exclusion deadline to be synchronized between the defendants at least 60 days after notice is sent. It ordered the long-form notice posted on class counsel's bilingual websites, required the defendants and their subcontractors to report on the notice campaign within 60 days of its completion, and ordered that the list of class members (excluding those who opt out) be provided to the plaintiff's counsel, LPC Avocats, within 45 days after the exclusion period expires. The plaintiff's request for an order preserving evidence and delivering it to the court on a USB device was dismissed. Neither party succeeded outright: the plaintiff, Joyce Romano, obtained favourable rulings on removing the defendants' denial language and on the eventual disclosure of the member list, while the defendants, Vidéotron ltée and Cogeco Connexion inc., succeeded in removing the "illegal" characterization, avoiding newspaper publication, and defeating the evidence-preservation request. This judgment addresses procedural notice and case-management issues only; it does not decide the merits of the class action, and no monetary award or damages were granted or ordered in this decision. Costs were reserved to follow the outcome of the case.