Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue is whether Amazon’s Quebec Prime delivery service complied with contractual and statutory obligations after the closure of its Quebec warehouses in January 2025.
• Plaintiff alleges misleading representations about one- and two-day delivery times for Prime-eligible items, grounding the claim in the Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Code of Québec.
• Evidence includes the plaintiff’s own order history showing a limited number of late deliveries, contrasted with extensive media and social-media reports of widespread delivery delays following the warehouse closures.
• The court finds a defendable cause of action only for a short period (22 January to 31 March 2025), based on contemporaneous evidence that Amazon may not have been able to meet the promised Prime delivery times.
• The class is narrowed to Quebec Prime members who actually ordered Prime-eligible items in that period and experienced delivery delays beyond the one- or two-day timeframe represented.
• Authorization is granted for the class action to proceed, but no damages or specific monetary amounts are awarded at this stage; the merits of liability and quantum remain to be decided.

Background and parties

This case arises from Amazon’s decision, announced and implemented on 22 January 2025, to close its warehouses in Quebec and revert to a model using local third-party delivery providers, similar to the model used before 2020. The plaintiff, Jean Desnoyers, is a Quebec resident and an Amazon Prime member since 2022. He sues three Amazon entities—Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC, and Amazon.com.ca, ULC—on behalf of a proposed class of Quebec Prime subscribers.
Desnoyers claims that the warehouse closures led to a deterioration of the Prime delivery service in Quebec and that Amazon failed to honour its promises of rapid, free delivery for Prime-eligible items. His request at this stage is not for a judgment on the merits, but for authorization to institute a class action and be appointed representative of the group.

Prime subscription and contractual promises

Prime membership is marketed as providing, among other benefits, free delivery within one or two days on certain “Prime-eligible” items, clearly identified by a distinctive logo on Amazon’s online store. Only Prime members benefit from this rapid free delivery without a minimum purchase, whereas non-Prime customers must pay delivery charges, particularly to obtain the same speed of service. According to the plaintiff, Amazon represents that millions of items are Prime-eligible.
The legal basis of the claim rests on both the Civil Code of Québec and the Consumer Protection Act. Contractually, Desnoyers invokes articles 1407 and 1422 C.c.Q., alleging that Amazon made representations it could not honour concerning delivery times, leading to contractual non-performance and error. Statutorily, he relies on articles 40 and 41 L.p.c., which require that the service supplied conform both to the description in the contract and to any public declaration or advertisement made by the merchant or manufacturer, and he ties potential remedies to article 272 L.p.c., which allows reductions of obligations, compensatory damages and punitive damages where there is a breach of these obligations. He also pleads various provisions on prohibited practices (including arts. 219, 220, 225, 227 and 288 L.p.c.) and refers more generally to the Competition Act, although the authorization analysis focuses primarily on consumer protection and contract principles.

Warehouse closures and alleged service deterioration

On 22 January 2025, Amazon closes its Quebec warehouses, indicating publicly that it intends to maintain or even improve service quality while eventually lowering costs for customers over the long term. The plaintiff contends that, contrary to these assurances, Prime delivery service quickly deteriorated following the closures. He alleges that promised delivery times were not met, that some orders were cancelled, and that the overall Prime delivery experience in Quebec was degraded.
In his own case, Desnoyers points to a specific example: on 29 January 2025, he orders a set of razor blades—identified as a Prime-eligible item—with an expected delivery date of 30 January. The order is actually delivered on 3 February 2025, several days later than the promised one-day delivery window. He supplements this with broader anecdotal and media evidence: discussions on Reddit describing newly extended delivery times of around four days for items that previously would arrive the next day; social-media commentary by a retail strategist noting that Prime delivery delays in Quebec suburbs had stretched from one day to up to five days, with Amazon sometimes attributing delays to weather; and multiple news and blog articles (including pieces in The Logic, Uranium Waves and La Presse) documenting that Prime delivery times in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec appeared to have lengthened significantly compared with Toronto and other major Canadian cities. These sources reported, for example, that items that could be delivered within one or two days in Toronto or Calgary were sometimes taking four to six working days to reach Montreal, even for Prime members.

Evidence from Amazon and the plaintiff’s order history

At the authorization stage, the court allowed Amazon to file certain documentary evidence to respond to the plaintiff’s allegations. This evidence proved important in narrowing the scope of the claim. Amazon’s records showed that Desnoyers had placed a substantial number of orders—more than 50—on Amazon.ca between 22 January and 18 June 2025, many of which he had not mentioned in his authorization application. These undisclosed orders included a series of Prime-eligible purchases both before and after the highlighted January 29 razor-blade order.
The court carefully reviews his order history. Prior to and around the disputed order, Desnoyers had placed several Prime-eligible orders that were delivered within the promised one- or two-day timeframe. After 31 January, he placed 45 additional orders. Out of all these, the court identifies only a handful that involved genuine delivery delays beyond the represented Prime timeframe—for example, a thermometer, a dog paw wax product, a tape order combined with cookies that were later refunded, espresso cups, and a pair of sweatpants. Even among these, some items were delivered within or earlier than the delivery dates that were actually accepted at the time of purchase.
On this basis, the court concludes that, although there is evidence of delays, the proportion of late deliveries in the plaintiff’s own record is relatively small compared with the total number of commands he placed during the months following the warehouse closures. The court also notes that, in several instances, the promised “Prime” delivery window in the subscription terms (one or two days) did not match the later “estimated delivery date” that Desnoyers accepted at checkout (e.g., orders where the estimated delivery date was three to nine days after purchase). This distinction becomes important when assessing the time period and the type of customers for whom there appears to be a viable cause of action.

Authorization criteria and limitation of the time period

In Quebec, a plaintiff seeking to bring a class action must satisfy four cumulative criteria under article 575 C.p.c.: (1) the existence of identical, similar or related questions of law or fact; (2) the appearance of a defendable cause of action; (3) the composition of the group being such that a class proceeding is the preferable procedural vehicle; and (4) the ability of the proposed representative to adequately represent the class. The Court of Appeal has emphasized that these criteria must be interpreted broadly and generously in light of the objectives of class proceedings—access to justice, deterrence of harmful behaviour and compensation of victims—while still permitting the judge to filter out frivolous or manifestly unfounded claims.
The central debate here lies in the second criterion: whether Desnoyers has put forward an arguable cause of action. At this stage, factual allegations are presumed true unless they are vague, imprecise, clearly inaccurate or contradicted by the evidence, and pure questions of law may be decided. However, the judge cannot weigh the evidence or pronounce definitively on the merits. The burden on the plaintiff is low: he must only show a “simple possibility” of success on at least one legal basis. In this case, he argues that his cause of action under articles 40 and 41 L.p.c. regarding conformity to contractual and advertising promises is sufficient for authorization.
The court agrees, but only for a defined and limited period. By combining the plaintiff’s own late deliveries with the contemporaneous media and user reports of delays, the court finds that there is a defendable claim that, between the closure of the warehouses on 22 January 2025 and 31 March 2025, Amazon may not have been able to respect the Prime delivery promises for Quebec customers. For this period, it is at least arguable that Amazon’s services did not conform to the contractual description or to its public representations, potentially triggering remedies under article 272 L.p.c., including reductions of obligation, compensatory damages and possibly punitive damages, depending on the proof of Amazon’s knowledge or recklessness. However, beyond 31 March 2025, the plaintiff’s own order history shows very few late deliveries (one late delivery out of 28 orders), and that single example involves an order where he accepted at checkout an estimated delivery date significantly later than the usual Prime standard. Given the absence of pleaded facts or supporting documentation showing a pattern of late deliveries after March 2025, the court declines to authorize the class action for the period after 31 March 2025.

Narrowing and definition of the class

Initially, Desnoyers proposed a broad class definition covering all individuals in Quebec who held an Amazon Prime membership from 22 January 2025 to the date of the authorization judgment. Alternatively, he suggested a class limited to Prime members who purchased items after being promised a delivery time of two days or less and then experienced delivery times exceeding one or two days. The court finds that the broader definition is not appropriate because it would include many Prime subscribers who never suffered any delivery delay or who did not rely on the promised fast delivery at all.
The judgment stresses that Prime offers multiple benefits beyond rapid delivery: access to Prime Video, music streaming, unlimited digital reading and photo storage. Some Prime members may have used only these services and made no purchases during the relevant period, meaning they would not have a direct claim related to delayed delivery. Others, like Desnoyers, placed numerous orders that were delivered on time. To ensure that only those with a potential cause of action are included, the court adopts a narrower definition. The authorized group consists of Quebec natural persons who (i) were Amazon Prime members between 22 January 2025 and 31 March 2025, (ii) purchased a product on Amazon.ca after being represented a one- or two-day delivery time, and (iii) actually received the product later than the one- or two-day timeframe represented, depending on what was promised for that item.
The court also confirms that there are common questions suitable for collective determination, such as whether Amazon engaged in prohibited practices regarding Prime delivery services in breach of the Civil Code, the Consumer Protection Act or the Competition Act; whether the Amazon entities are jointly liable; and whether class members are entitled to compensatory and/or punitive damages, and, if so, in what amounts. The size and diffuse nature of the group, and the fact that its members are not readily identifiable in advance, make individual actions or mandates impractical. Accordingly, the composition of the group supports proceeding by way of class action.

Representative plaintiff and procedural outcome

Regarding the adequacy of representation, the court applies a liberal and pragmatic standard. The proposed representative need not be perfect; he must simply demonstrate a genuine interest in the matter, a general understanding of the issues, the ability to make decisions with the support of counsel, a personal cause of action, and the absence of conflict with the class. The judge concludes that Desnoyers meets this minimal but meaningful threshold. Although his undisclosed orders required the court to refine the time period and class definition, they do not disqualify him from representing the group once the claim is properly narrowed.
In the result, the Superior Court grants authorization to institute a class action. It appoints Jean Desnoyers as representative of the defined class and sets out the principal common issues and the types of relief the action will seek: a declaration that Amazon breached its contractual and statutory obligations; compensatory damages to each class member, either in the form of full reimbursement of Prime fees paid during the class period or a partial refund reflecting the diminished value of the degraded service; punitive damages under the Consumer Protection Act for having knowingly charged for services it could not provide; collective recovery of all damages; and payment of judicial costs, expert fees, notice expenses and administration costs of any eventual recovery. The court also orders that any member who does not opt out within 60 days of publication of the authorization notice will be bound by the ultimate judgment, determines that the action will proceed in the district of Montreal, and convenes the parties to settle the form and modalities of the notice to class members.
As of this authorization judgment, the successful party is the plaintiff, Jean Desnoyers, who obtains permission to proceed with the class action on behalf of the narrowed class for the period from 22 January 2025 to 31 March 2025. However, no damages, reimbursement, punitive award or quantified costs are yet granted; the judgment only structures the litigation and leaves all questions of liability, quantum and the exact monetary amounts—if any—to be determined at a later merits stage. Accordingly, the total monetary award, including any costs, damages or other sums that may eventually be ordered in favour of the successful party, cannot be determined from this decision.