Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of “preuve appropriée” at the class action authorization stage under article 574 C.p.c., including when the court will permit additional affidavits.
• Tension between the summary nature of authorization and defendants’ interest in correcting or clarifying allegedly inaccurate factual allegations.
• Application of proportionality and reasonable conduct of proceedings (articles 18 and 19 C.p.c.) to limit the volume and purpose of evidence filed at authorization.
• Use of sworn declarations to provide neutral, objective factual context about an access-to-information request and the content of a patient’s file.
• Judicial concern not to transform authorization into a merits trial while still allowing evidence that fills factual gaps or addresses manifest inaccuracies.
• Procedural success for the defendants, who obtain leave to file a second affidavit, with the motion granted without costs and no monetary award or damages ordered.

Background and parties

The case arises before the Québec Superior Court, Class Actions Chamber, in Montréal, concerning a proposed class action brought by Maxime Paquin-Charbonneau, later joined by co-applicant Daniel Junior Marc Mélançon-Gaudreault, against Innomar Strategies inc. and Cencora inc. The applicants seek authorization to represent a group of all persons in Québec whose personal information, held by Innomar and/or Cencora, was allegedly subject to a data exfiltration on or around 21 February 2024. The judgment you provided does not decide the merits of liability for the data incident. Instead, it addresses a discrete procedural issue: whether the defendants may file an additional sworn declaration as “appropriate evidence” in the record at the authorization stage of the proposed class action.

Facts relating to the access-to-information request

Central to this procedural motion are allegations made by Mr. Paquin-Charbonneau about an access-to-information request concerning his patient file. In an amended authorization application, he alleges that he submitted an access request to the PfizerFlex patient support program (PSP) and to Innomar in order to obtain the complete contents of his file. He states that on 19 and 24 July 2024 he received only a partial copy of that file. According to his allegations, the documents disclosed by the defendants appeared limited: they were few in number, did not include the reverse sides of consent forms (which, he says, contain patient consent statements) and did not show any of the insurance information he recalls having provided. Because of what he characterizes as incomplete documentation and a lack of transparency concerning which documents the defendants possess and retain, he alleges that he still does not know the exact content of his file that was affected by the data exfiltration. He also indicates that he lodged a complaint with the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec in an effort to obtain his full file. In their response, the defendants assert that these allegations about the access-to-information request and the content of the file are manifestly false or inaccurate. To address this, they seek permission to file a second sworn declaration from Mr. Jeff MacDonald, vice-president of specialized client services at Innomar, with an attached exhibit, in order to provide a factual account of the request and the documents provided.

Procedural history leading to the motion

The proposed class action began when Mr. Paquin-Charbonneau filed his motion for authorization on 13 August 2024, defining the group by reference to the alleged February 2024 data exfiltration. The motion was then amended to add Mr. Mélançon-Gaudreault as a co-applicant, without changing the group’s definition. On 2 April 2025, the court had already authorized the filing of a first affidavit from Mr. MacDonald as “appropriate evidence” at the authorization stage. Later, on 15 September 2025, the applicants amended their authorization motion again, this time to include the access-to-information allegations and references to the PSP’s enrollment and information forms. In response to that new material, the defendants brought a further motion (a “Demande additionnelle pour produire une preuve appropriée”) asking the court to allow them to file a second sworn declaration by Mr. MacDonald, together with an exhibit, to address and clarify those new allegations. Importantly, the applicants did not oppose this additional motion.

Legal framework on appropriate evidence at authorization

The judge situates the motion within article 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that a motion for authorization to institute a class action set out the underlying facts, the nature of the recourse, and the proposed group, and which provides that the motion is contested orally while allowing the court to authorize presentation of “appropriate evidence.” From there, the judgment canvasses the case law to highlight several guiding principles. First, any production of evidence at the authorization stage requires the court’s permission; an agreement between the parties cannot, by itself, bind the court. Second, because authorization is meant to be a summary and preliminary step, the court must strike a balance between strictness and flexibility, ensuring that authorization does not become a full-blown trial on the merits. Third, any evidence admitted at this stage must be both limited and proportionate, confined to what is essential and indispensable to assessing the article 575 criteria for authorization, and in line with the broader procedural principles of proportionality and reasonable conduct in articles 18 and 19 C.p.c. Fourth, the court must not assume the role of ultimate fact-finder at authorization; it generally treats the motion’s allegations as true and focuses on the legal syllogism, rather than evaluating contested factual disputes. Fifth, when deciding on such a motion, the court considers whether the party seeking leave has shown the relevance and utility of the proposed evidence, bearing in mind the significant costs that can arise from class actions that are improvidently authorized. Sixth, where the evidence takes the form of sworn declarations, these should address neutral and objective facts, rather than controversial or litigated issues whose resolution belongs at the merits stage. Affidavits inviting challenges to credibility or weight are generally not “appropriate” at this preliminary step.

Examples of evidence considered appropriate

In outlining the framework, the court notes how these principles have been applied in previous decisions. Evidence often considered appropriate includes the contracts that are directly relevant to class members’ claims, descriptions of a defendant’s activities and its regulatory environment, documents that fill factual gaps or clarify imprecise allegations, material that on its face shows the obvious falsity of specific allegations, and proof that relates to the superior court’s jurisdiction where jurisdiction is contested. In these instances, the evidence serves a clarifying or gap-filling role, rather than inviting the court to resolve disputed facts or to weigh competing narratives best left to the trial judge.

Application to the second MacDonald declaration

Turning to the second declaration proposed by Mr. MacDonald, the court reviews the applicants’ new allegations about the PSP, the partial nature of the file they say was provided, and the absence of certain documents and information they expected to see. The defendants maintain that these allegations are manifestly inaccurate and seek to tender an affidavit that would factually describe the access-to-information request, the steps taken in response, and the actual content of the material disclosed. The court finds that this proposed evidence is necessary and falls within the narrow corridor delineated by the jurisprudence: it is targeted at clarifying a specific factual area, namely the handling and content of the access request, and is not intended to convert the authorization hearing into a full merits trial. The declaration, as described, is to be confined to factual, neutral information and to the newly raised allegations, making it proportionate to the issues at hand. The absence of opposition from the applicants further supports the view that admitting this evidence will not unduly complicate or lengthen the authorization hearing, but will instead assist the court in properly understanding the factual setting of the claims.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

In the result, the court grants the defendants’ additional motion. It authorizes Innomar Strategies inc. and Cencora inc. to file a second sworn declaration from Mr. Jeff MacDonald, vice-president of specialized client services at Innomar, in the form attached as Annex A to their motion. The judgment specifies that this is ordered “sans frais de justice,” meaning that no party is ordered to pay costs in relation to this procedural motion. On this particular ruling, the successful party is therefore the defence side: Innomar Strategies inc. and Cencora inc. obtain exactly the procedural relief they sought. However, the judgment does not address or resolve the underlying merits of the alleged data exfiltration or any claim for damages. It does not award any compensation, damages, or costs to the applicants or to the defendants beyond stating that the motion is allowed without costs. As a result, based on this decision alone, no total monetary award, costs, or damages amount is granted or ordered in favor of any party, and no precise sum can be determined from the judgment.