Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of defendants’ right under article 251 C.C.P. to inspect class members’ washing machines as real evidence, balanced against privacy and proportionality.
• Distinction drawn between prohibited pre-trial examinations of class members and permissible pre-trial inspections of their property to preserve evidence for expert testimony.
• Challenge to additional inspections under the “one expert per field” rule in article 232 C.C.P., with the court allowing further expert work on different washers.
• Allegations of ethical impropriety and conflict of interest arising from class counsel’s personal use of Samsung’s recall program and contacts with customer service.
• Court’s refusal to disqualify class counsel under article 193 C.C.P., finding no serious cause and accepting that the interactions were personal, not covert discovery.
• Case management directions on limiting and structuring class member evidence (live testimony, sworn declarations, and inspections) to protect scarce judicial resources.

Background and facts of the case

The proceedings arise within a broader class action authorized in April 2018 against Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., concerning certain models of top-loading washing machines sold in Canada and used in Quebec between roughly 2011 and 2016. These washing machines were the subject of a voluntary product recall launched by Samsung in the fall of 2016, after the company identified a risk that excessive vibration during the spin cycle could cause the washer lid to detach. The recall program offered affected consumers two options: a free in-home repair combined with an additional one-year manufacturer’s warranty, called the Recall Repair, or a rebate that could be applied to the purchase of a new Samsung washer, called the Recall Rebate. The plaintiffs in the class action are Option Consommateurs, a consumer protection organization, and the designated representative, Ms. Chantal Gagnon. They allege that the recall was insufficient to make consumers whole for the risks and losses associated with the allegedly defective washers, and that the washers suffer from a latent design defect connected to inadequate damping of the drum, which allegedly leads to vibration, interrupted spin cycles, and, in some cases, “explosion” events. Samsung denies these allegations. It pleads that most consumers never experienced the defect and that, for those who did, the recall measures (repair or rebate) effectively resolved the problem without causing compensable damages.

Procedural context and key issues

The 2025 judgment is not a merits decision on liability or damages. Instead, it deals with two substantial interlocutory matters: Samsung’s application for access to real evidence and approval of an inspection protocol to examine class members’ washers, and its amended case management notice and application seeking the disqualification of one of plaintiffs’ lawyers. The court situates these disputes within a long procedural history. Since authorization in 2018 and the filing of Samsung’s defense in 2020, the parties have litigated multiple pre-trial issues, notably about discovery connected to Samsung’s Global Customer Interaction Center database, which records customer contacts and complaints. Class management has been challenging. The court notes that the common issues identified at authorization include whether the risk of explosion and related loss of use amounts to a latent defect, whether the recall bars further claims, whether class members are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, and, if so, whether those damages should be recovered individually or collectively. The burden to show that collective recovery is appropriate rests on the plaintiffs, who must establish a loss shared across the class. In practice, that has led to intense debate over how many class members will testify, how their evidence will be presented (live in court, sworn declarations, or out-of-court examinations), and what physical evidence—specifically, the washers themselves—will be available for expert analysis.

Legal framework for inspection of washers

On the inspection question, the court relies primarily on article 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision obliges a party in possession of real evidence to preserve it to the end of the trial and, upon request, to present it to other parties or submit it to experts. Where the parties cannot agree, the court can order disclosure or authorize an expertise. The court emphasizes that this article, like other pre-trial tools, must be interpreted broadly and liberally to safeguard a party’s right to make a full defense and to maintain equality between the litigants. Relevance at this stage is assessed generously, and the key criterion is whether the inspection is useful to the resolution of the identified issues, not whether it is strictly necessary. Preservation of evidence is a central concern. The washers at issue were sold many years earlier, which means that they are now roughly 10 to 15 years old, and a substantial proportion of class members—about 70 percent based on plaintiffs’ own information—no longer possess the machines. The court notes that further procedural delay and lack of cooperation will only increase the risk that critical physical evidence disappears.

Class members’ status and the nature of inspections

Plaintiffs objected that class members are not “parties” in the strict sense and argued that forcing inspections of their washers would amount to improper discovery. The court rejects the suggestion that class members’ formal status bars such orders. Quebec jurisprudence has long characterized class members as “quasi-parties,” and the procedural code expressly allows courts to order non-party holders of relevant evidence to submit it for inspection. The judge distinguishes inspections from pre-trial oral examinations. A pre-trial deposition merely rehearses testimony that can still be presented at trial even if the deposition is denied. By contrast, the ability to examine real evidence before trial is often a precondition for preparing an admissible expert report, and Quebec procedure requires expert reports to be filed before the declaration of readiness. Denying inspections therefore risks depriving a party of necessary expert proof at the merits stage. The court also underscores the functional difference: the requested washer inspections aim to conserve and document physical evidence and generate data for trial use, rather than to conduct a dry-run of class members’ testimony. Moreover, most of the proposed washers belong to individuals the plaintiffs themselves designated as potential trial witnesses, suggesting that plaintiffs deem those experiences and machines germane to the common questions.

Usefulness, proportionality and the number of inspections

On usefulness, the plaintiffs argued that their expert had already tested washers and concluded there was a design defect, so further inspections of individual machines would add little. The court disagrees. Whether a defect exists, how it manifests in real-world use, and how frequently problems occur are core issues in the case. Limited inspections of actual class members’ machines are logically connected to those questions and will help the court later determine both liability and the appropriateness of any collective recovery. The judge applies the proportionality principle from the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that litigation steps not unduly complicate or delay proceedings or introduce evidentiary burdens that are disproportionate to the rights at stake. Samsung’s amended application sought authorization to inspect 45 washers: 35 belonging to proposed class witnesses and 10 belonging to other class members for whom plaintiffs had requested detailed information from Samsung’s records. The court finds that some inspections of both groups are justified. However, it does not grant the full 45. It orders that class counsel must first confirm which of the 45 listed individuals still own their washers and must instruct those owners not to dispose of the machines without 30 days’ prior notice, which must be transmitted to Samsung’s counsel. The court authorizes Samsung to inspect up to 20 washers from the pool of proposed class trial witnesses and up to 5 from the additional class members, for a total of 25 inspections. Given an estimated class size of about 60,000 customers, the judge considers this a modest and proportionate sample, with the possibility of additional inspections later depending on how the evidence and case management issues unfold.

The expert “one per field” rule and multiple inspections

Plaintiffs also invoked article 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits each party to a single expert opinion per field or discipline unless the court authorizes more. They argued that permitting further inspections and a complementary expert report would effectively authorize a second expert in the same field. The court interprets article 232 in light of its purpose: to avoid undue duplication and expert “piling on,” not to bar necessary and distinct expert work on different objects. It concludes that there is no substantive overlap, because the proposed complementary report would address washers that had not been examined in any prior expert opinions. The judge reads the article flexibly, stressing that procedural rules about expert evidence must be reconciled with the parties’ right to a full defense and with the broader principles of proportionality and fairness. On that basis, the “one expert per area” rule does not prevent authorization of further inspections or the filing of a supplementary expert report based on those new observations.

Design of the inspection protocol

Samsung supported its application with a detailed inspection protocol identifying the experts who would perform the work, specifying the steps of the inspection process, and describing the documentation to be generated. The protocol contemplated visual inspections, standardized loading and operating conditions, and video and photographic recording of the procedures, with loads similar to those used in earlier expert tests. Plaintiffs’ experts would be allowed to attend. The court finds that the protocol, as revised following plaintiffs’ objections, largely satisfies the requirements derived from case law: it is specific, time-limited, and structured to yield probative evidence without unduly intruding on class members’ privacy or disrupting their home environments. Adjustments are nonetheless ordered. No lawyers may be present during inspections, to keep the number of people in often cramped laundry spaces to a minimum, though the parties may designate a neutral observer to attend and facilitate the process. Each side will bear its own expert costs, while Samsung will pay the neutral observer, with all such expenses to be addressed by the trial judge in the allocation of expert costs at the end of the case. Importantly, the court emphasizes that further inspections may be considered once it rules on plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion about whether and how class members’ evidence will be presented by sworn declaration rather than live testimony.

Professional conduct and the disqualification application

The second major issue is Samsung’s attempt to disqualify one of plaintiffs’ lawyers, Mtre Léanie Cardinal, and to impose restrictions on class counsel’s communications. Samsung discovered through its internal customer records that two lawyers at the plaintiffs’ firm—Mtre Jean-Philippe Lincourt and Mtre Cardinal—were themselves owners or users of recalled washers and had contacted Samsung’s customer service during the period when the class action was already underway. Mtre Lincourt had contacted Samsung in December 2018 after his washer began systematically failing and ultimately used the Recall Rebate to buy a replacement. Mtre Cardinal, who bought a condominium in 2018 that included a recalled Samsung washer, contacted Samsung in March 2023 to arrange the recall repair so she could sell the condo with the appliance brought into compliance. She also received a visit from an authorized service provider for the repair. These contacts were not contemporaneously disclosed to Samsung’s litigation counsel. Samsung argued that such undisclosed, direct dealings with the represented defendant during litigation amounted to inappropriate parallel discovery and raised concerns under article 193 C.C.P. and the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers. It asked the court to declare that class counsel may not use their status as class members to contact Samsung’s personnel, to disqualify Mtre Cardinal, and to compel her to reveal the identity and contact details of the purchaser of her washer.

Ethical standards, lawyer-as-witness, and integrity of the process

The court sets out the governing principles from article 193 C.C.P. and the Code of Conduct. Disqualification is an exceptional remedy, available where a lawyer is in an unremedied conflict of interest, is likely to misuse or disclose confidential information, or is likely to testify on essential facts—but in the latter case only for “serious cause.” At the same time, parties have a significant interest in being represented by the counsel of their choice, and that interest should yield only to serious and compelling reasons. The court also considers the rules restricting a lawyer’s direct contacts with a represented entity. Those rules typically protect against communications with individuals who have a decision-making role or a direct link to the events underlying the dispute, or who are deeply involved in the conduct of the litigation—not frontline customer service staff handling ordinary consumer calls. In assessing whether disqualification is necessary to preserve public confidence, the court asks how a reasonably informed member of the public would view the situation. It also warns against the strategic use of disqualification motions based on speculative or marginal allegations, as such tactics can themselves undermine the appearance of fairness.

Findings on counsel’s interactions and the need for testimony

Applying these standards, the court concludes that the conduct of Mtre Cardinal and Mtre Lincourt, though imprudent in the circumstances, does not justify disqualification. Both lawyers have been involved in the class action since they joined the firm (2018 and 2021 respectively), and the court states that they should, as a matter of good practice, have alerted Samsung’s counsel when they interacted with customer service about washers covered by the recall. However, the court accepts their explanations that they acted for purely personal consumer reasons—resolving a malfunctioning machine in one case and clearing a recall obligation before selling a property in the other—and that they did not collect information for litigation purposes or keep any detailed records of their contacts. The court notes that when questions arose, both lawyers were candid and provided factual answers, which were corroborated by Samsung’s own customer records and, in Mtre Cardinal’s case, by audio recordings of her calls. Those recordings showed that her discussions were short and focused on logistics: the availability of stickers confirming repair and the scheduling of the technician’s visit. There was no evidence of probing for internal technical information or legal strategy. On the issue of lawyer-as-witness, Samsung argued that Mtre Cardinal’s testimony would be essential to show, among other things, that class members had varied experiences, that some continued to use or resell their washers after recall repairs, that the recall was allegedly adequate, and that some class members suffered no damages. The court is not persuaded. It points out that plaintiffs have agreed to treat Mtre Cardinal’s written answers in the record as formal admissions for trial purposes, and that Samsung possesses an extensive database of nearly 60,000 customer “tickets” documenting interactions with Quebec washer owners. There is no reason to think that the experiences of the purchasers of Mtre Cardinal’s former washer are unique or irreplaceable evidence; similar stories can be drawn from among many other class members. The judge therefore finds that her live testimony is not necessary and that the same evidentiary ground can be covered through other, less problematic means.

Outcome of the disqualification motion and future conduct

The court accordingly dismisses Samsung’s amended case management notice and application to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel. It refuses to disqualify Mtre Cardinal or anyone else in her firm and declines to order disclosure of the buyers of her former washer, viewing that information as unnecessary in light of the inspections already authorized and the broader pool of potential witnesses available to Samsung. As for future conduct, Samsung requested a blanket prohibition preventing class counsel from contacting any Samsung employees or directors in relation to the washers at issue. The court considers such an order largely unnecessary, noting that neither of the two lawyers still owns a recalled machine and that any further consumer-type contacts are now unlikely. Instead, it records class counsel’s undertaking that the members of their team working on this class action will not contact any Samsung employees or representatives about the washers covered by the case without first informing Samsung’s counsel.

Case management directions and next steps

Recognizing that attempts to negotiate a comprehensive case protocol have failed, the court takes a more directive approach. It requires the plaintiffs, within 60 days of the judgment, to file a motion for permission to use sworn declarations in lieu of live testimony for some class members. That motion must specify how many class members they wish to have testify at trial, how long they expect each direct examination to last (excluding the representative plaintiff), how many sworn declarations they propose to file in place of live testimony, a template or example of such a declaration, and a proposed deadline for filing them all. Once that motion is filed, the parties must inform the court whether a hearing is required and agree on a timetable for exchanging written arguments. Samsung, for its part, must indicate in its written submissions how much time it expects to need to cross-examine each class member witness, whether those examinations occur in court or out of court. The court also stipulates that the inspections of washers it has just authorized will not proceed until after it has ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion regarding sworn declarations. This sequencing is intended to align evidence-gathering, expert work, and the eventual trial schedule in a way that respects both parties’ rights and the court’s limited resources.

Overall outcome, successful party, and monetary orders

This judgment produces a mixed procedural outcome. On the one hand, Samsung is substantially successful on its amended application for access to real evidence: the court grants the application, approves its revised inspection protocol with some modifications, and authorizes it to inspect up to 25 class members’ washers. On the other hand, the plaintiffs prevail on the disqualification front: the court dismisses Samsung’s amended case management notice and application to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel and rejects the request to compel disclosure of the purchaser’s identity for counsel’s former washer. The court also accepts plaintiffs’ undertaking to treat certain factual answers as admissions, which benefits both the administration of justice and Samsung’s ability to rely on those facts at trial. Importantly, this is an interlocutory procedural ruling, not a decision on liability or damages. No compensatory or punitive damages are awarded at this stage, and the court simply orders that costs “follow suit,” meaning that cost consequences will reflect the parties’ partial successes but are not quantified in the judgment. In practical terms, neither side is declared the overall successful party on the merits, and no specific monetary award, damages, or fixed costs amount is ordered in favor of any party in this decision; the total amount in favor of any successful party therefore cannot be determined from this judgment.