Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Class action in Quebec Superior Court concerning alleged price-fixing by Webasto and related economic loss.
• Dispute over disclosure of expert data and methodology (données additionnelles) needed for Webasto’s expert to test TFI’s economic report.
• Contested access to settlement-related “documents de coopération” provided by former co-defendant Espar to TFI under a prior settlement.
• Application of litigation privilege to information and documents obtained via settlement, shielding them from disclosure to remaining defendants.
• Clarification of experts’ duties to disclose sources, data cleaning steps and methodology so opposing experts can attempt to reproduce findings.
• Case management issues around timing for expert exchanges and extension of the delay to inscribe the case for trial, with the Court reserving its decision on the extension and making no costs order.

Background and nature of the dispute

This decision arises from a class action before the Superior Court of Quebec, Class Actions Division, in TFI Transport 11, Inc. v. Espar Inc. et al. (No. 500-06-000736-153), decided on March 26, 2026 by Justice David R. Collier. TFI Transport 11, Inc. (“TFI”) is the plaintiff, and the remaining defendants include several Webasto entities.
TFI alleges that Webasto engaged in a price-fixing strategy that caused economic harm. To quantify this alleged harm, TFI relies on an expert report prepared by economist Dr. Marshall. The case also previously involved Espar as a co-defendant, but TFI and Espar reached a settlement, and Espar exited the litigation after providing information and documents to TFI as part of that settlement.
The judgment at issue is not a final ruling on liability, damages, or the merits of the price-fixing claims. It is a procedural and evidentiary decision dealing with expert disclosure, privilege, and case management in the lead-up to trial.

Requests made by Webasto for disclosure

Webasto brought a Notice of Case Management seeking two distinct categories of material from TFI.
First, Webasto requested the données additionnelles. This comprised additional information and documents explaining the sources of information and methodology used by Dr. Marshall to calculate the economic impact of Webasto’s alleged price-fixing strategy. Webasto’s counsel and its expert, Analysis Group ULC, itemised these needs in a letter from counsel dated 15 October 2025 (R-6) and in a letter from Analysis Group dated 27 January 2026 (Annex A).
Second, Webasto sought access to the documents de coopération. These were the information and documents that Espar, a former co-defendant, had provided to TFI as part of the settlement agreement reached between TFI and Espar the previous year. Webasto wanted to see what Espar had shared with TFI during that settlement process.
Webasto relied on the Court’s broad powers to order the communication of information and documents at any stage of a proceeding, in line with principles of cooperation and transparency. The Court accepted that, in general, a moving party must show that the requested material is relevant and likely to advance the case towards trial, and that a party resisting disclosure on grounds of privilege must demonstrate that privilege applies.

Expert evidence and the données additionnelles

The dispute over the données additionnelles centred on the ability of Webasto’s expert to understand and test Dr. Marshall’s economic analysis.
Analysis Group reported it could not reproduce Dr. Marshall’s findings using the information that TFI and its expert had disclosed up to that point. It maintained that without the additional data and methodological details listed in the October 15, 2025 and January 27, 2026 letters, it could not fully grasp Dr. Marshall’s approach or verify his results.
Dr. Marshall, for his part, suggested that Analysis Group’s inability to replicate his results was “likely due” to “data cleaning” procedures. However, he was unable to state definitively that this was the reason or to fully bridge the methodological gap identified by Webasto’s expert.
Against this background, the Court reiterated an important principle governing expert practice: experts must disclose the information they have consulted and relied on in preparing their reports, identify the source of that information, and explain the methodology they used to reach their conclusions. When doubts arise about an expert’s analysis, the Court can order the expert to provide further methodological detail.
Given the disagreement and the need for clarity, the Court found that the additional information requested by Webasto was relevant and would assist its expert in responding meaningfully to Dr. Marshall’s report. It also emphasised that both the parties and the Court benefit from expert opinions grounded in a shared understanding of the facts and analytical methods.
As a result, the Court ordered TFI to provide the defendants with the information and documents requested in defence counsel’s 15 October 2025 letter (exhibit R-6) and in Analysis Group’s 27 January 2026 letter (Annex A). In practical terms, this was a significant procedural win for Webasto on the expert-evidence disclosure front.

Litigation privilege and the documents de coopération

The Court reached a different conclusion on Webasto’s attempt to obtain the documents de coopération, namely the information and documents Espar had supplied to TFI in the context of their settlement.
TFI resisted production on the basis of litigation privilege. The Court accepted this position and held that any information or documents TFI received from Espar as part of their settlement agreement were covered by litigation privilege because they were intended to assist TFI in preparing its claim against Webasto.
On that basis, the Court found it inappropriate to grant Webasto’s request to obtain the documents de coopération. This portion of the motion was therefore refused. The ruling underscores that, even within an overall framework of cooperation and transparency, privilege remains a firm boundary: materials obtained or generated for the purposes of litigation preparation and strategy—especially in the context of settlements with former co-defendants—need not be disclosed to remaining adversaries.

Case management and timing to inscribe the case

Beyond disclosure, the judgment addresses the timetable for completing expert evidence and inscribing the case for trial.
At this stage, the filing of Webasto’s expert report was the only remaining step before the case could be declared ready for trial. However, the Court noted it was unclear how much time TFI would need to compile and provide the données additionnelles and how long Webasto’s expert would then require to analyse the new material and finalise its report.
Rather than impose a fixed schedule on its own, the Court invited the parties to collaborate. It directed them to make a joint submission indicating how much additional time they believed was necessary to inscribe the case. The Court expressly reserved its decision on the request to extend the deadline to inscribe until it received that joint proposal. This left the extension question open, but signalled the Court’s intention to move the matter efficiently towards trial once the expert disclosure issues were resolved.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

In its operative orders, the Court (1) directed TFI to provide Webasto with the données additionnelles described in the October 15, 2025 and January 27, 2026 letters, (2) reserved its decision on extending the delay to inscribe the case for trial pending a joint submission from the parties, and (3) rendered the judgment without costs, expressly citing the “mitigated result.”
The outcome is therefore mixed. Webasto, as defendant, was successful in compelling disclosure of additional expert-related information and documents, enabling its expert to better understand and test Dr. Marshall’s economic analysis. TFI, as plaintiff, successfully maintained litigation privilege over the settlement-related documents de coopération obtained from former co-defendant Espar, preventing their production to Webasto. Because each side prevailed on a significant portion of the issues, the Court declined to award costs to either party and characterised the result as mitigated.
No damages, compensation, or quantified costs are awarded or ordered in this decision. It is confined to procedural and evidentiary rulings and expressly states that it is rendered without costs, so there is no identifiable monetary amount granted in favour of any party at this stage.