Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of relevant discovery in a class action where defendants sought Facebook “Download Your Information” (DYI) data outside the certified class period
• Characterization of overbroad DYI requests as an abusive “fishing expedition” given the vast quantity and sensitivity of the plaintiff’s Facebook data
• Application of Article 228 CCP to objections based on relevance versus objections grounded in fundamental rights and privacy during pre-trial examination
• Role of the class authorization decision and defined class period in delimiting what documents and data are relevant to the certified collective issues
• Treatment of objections tied to private Facebook Messenger communications and the plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy in her personal messages
• Allocation of costs following a partially successful objections dispute and dismissal of defendants’ case management notice without judicial costs to either party

Background and facts of the case

The underlying proceeding is a Quebec class action brought by representative plaintiff Lyse Beaulieu against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Facebook Canada Ltd. The action concerns the alleged discriminatory use of Facebook’s advertising tools in relation to employment and housing advertisements between April 11, 2016 and December 22, 2022, the certified class period. The Court of Appeal of Quebec authorized the class action on December 22, 2022, overturning an initial refusal of authorization by the Superior Court. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was later denied, allowing the class action to proceed on the merits as defined by the authorization judgment.
The certified class is composed of Quebec Facebook users who were looking for or interested in employment or housing offers and who, due to their race, sex, or age, were excluded by Facebook’s advertising services from receiving such employment or housing ads on the platform during the class period. The collective issues framed by the Court of Appeal include whether Facebook’s ad targeting and distribution practices infringed rights protected by the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, whether moral and punitive damages are owed, and whether injunctive relief should issue to halt discriminatory ad targeting for jobs and housing.
Following authorization, Ms. Beaulieu filed an Originating Application on November 30, 2023, seeking moral damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Her allegations focus on the way Facebook’s ad systems distributed or withheld job and housing ads on prohibited grounds (race, sex, age), potentially excluding her and class members from valuable opportunities that would otherwise have appeared in their feeds.

Facebook’s “Download Your Information” data and pre-trial undertakings

In advance of the plaintiff’s pre-trial examination on discovery scheduled for September 23, 2025, the defendants circulated a detailed list of pre-undertakings they wanted fulfilled. Central to the present judgment is their request for the plaintiff’s Facebook “Download Your Information” (DYI) files. A DYI is a bundle of files a user can export from Facebook, containing a wide array of data about their account and activity. According to Facebook’s own information, DYI may include a user’s posts and tagged photos, personal profile data, connections such as friends and followers, logged activity including search history, security and login information, preference settings, interactions with advertisements, and additional logged data that Facebook associates with the user.
The defendants initially requested the plaintiff’s DYI for the full class period, April 11, 2016 to December 22, 2022. Because the procedure to obtain and transmit this data was complex, Ms. Beaulieu authorized Meta to retrieve her DYI for that period and share it directly with her counsel, who then agreed—without admission—to let the defendants receive a copy of the DYI limited to the certified class period. This DYI consisted of several hundred documents and captured the plaintiff’s Facebook activities, preferences, search history, and advertising interactions for the relevant years.
In their pre-undertakings, however, the defendants went further and asked not only for the DYI and activity logs within the class period but also for a complete extract of activity logs for all accounts since 2016 and full DYI files for any accounts the plaintiff used to access Facebook to look for work or housing or for any other allegedly relevant purpose. Later, in the course of the examination, they explicitly sought access to DYI data before April 2016 and after December 2022, on the theory that such information might bear on targeting, ad delivery, and the plaintiff’s subsequent use of Facebook for housing searches for her son.

Privacy concerns arising from Messenger content in the DYI

A major turning point came when the plaintiff and her counsel reviewed the DYI produced for the class period and discovered that it contained significantly more than what Facebook’s public information pages had indicated. Beyond the expected categories like activity logs and ad interactions, the DYI included detailed information such as comments and edits, event invitations and responses, gaming activity, and entire histories of Marketplace use, including searches, listing history, filters, notification settings, and payment information.
To the plaintiff’s particular surprise, the DYI also contained all of her Facebook Messenger conversations for the class period. She stated that this was unexpected for two reasons: first, Facebook’s informational materials did not clearly flag that private Messenger conversations form part of what can be downloaded through DYI; and second, the written authorization she signed did not explicitly mention Messenger communications. While the authorization enclosed broad language, it referenced categories like activity logs and search history and did not highlight that private, content-rich personal messages, including conversations with potential employers through Messenger, would be bundled into the exported dataset.
On the eve of the pre-trial examination, class counsel objected to the defendants’ use or retention of Messenger messages from the DYI. They asked defendants’ counsel to delete all Messenger messages supplied as part of the DYI and gave notice that they would object to any questioning about those messages at the examination. Defense counsel responded that the objection was raised too late, arguing the plaintiff had already consented to this data access; they indicated they would review the request to delete the data but did not return with any clear position before the examination proceeded.

The objections raised at pre-trial examination

At the September 23, 2025 examination, several key objections were recorded. The first group, Objections 4 and 13, concerned the defendants’ attempt to obtain DYI data for periods outside the class period—namely pre-2016 and post-2022 data. The plaintiff objected to these requests as irrelevant and as amounting to an impermissible “fishing expedition,” given that the defendants already possessed a massive DYI dataset for the entire certified class period.
The second group, Objections 5, 6, and 7, related to exhibits drawn from Facebook Messenger—such as screenshots or DYI extracts reflecting the plaintiff’s interactions with potential employers and advertisers via Messenger (e.g., documents relating to employment ads or clicks on job offers). Plaintiff’s counsel objected on privacy grounds to the use of such Messenger-based exhibits, maintaining that private communications should be protected by the plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of privacy. However, during the examination, the plaintiff was nevertheless allowed to answer the questions, and the objections were preserved for later adjudication under Article 228 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The legal framework for objections under Article 228 CCP

The Superior Court, presided over by Justice Donald Bisson, began by recalling the rules under Article 228 CCP governing objections raised during pre-trial examinations. The Code draws a distinction between objections connected to non-compellability, fundamental rights, or substantial and legitimate interests, on one hand, and other objections, such as relevance, on the other. Where objections involve fundamental rights or substantial legitimate interests, a witness may refuse to answer and the objection must be brought before the court within five days. In contrast, when an objection is based solely on relevance, the examination continues and the witness must answer, with the objection recorded for later ruling by the trial judge or by a judge seized earlier if an immediate decision is appropriate.
The Court reiterated that at the discovery stage, disclosure is the rule and refusal the exception. Relevance is interpreted broadly, and parties benefit from expansive pre-trial access to information that could realistically help advance the resolution of the case. The party seeking disclosure has only a modest initial burden: to show that the documents are useful and logically tied to the issues raised in the pleadings. At the same time, disclosure is not unlimited: it remains constrained by the relevance of the information to the live issues, proportionality, and the prohibition on abusive fishing expeditions.
The judgment drew on Supreme Court of Canada and Quebec Court of Appeal precedents emphasizing (1) that relevance must be assessed by reference to the pleadings and defined issues; (2) that overly broad or speculative disclosure demands are improper; and (3) that objections grounded in privacy or other fundamental interests can justify refusing to answer, though these objections must be raised promptly and argued properly. In the class action context, the authorization judgment, including the defined class period and collective issues, provides an essential framework for delimiting which documents and data are genuinely relevant to the case.

Determining relevance of DYI data outside the class period

Applying these principles, the Court examined the defendants’ arguments that DYI data from 2013–2016 and post-2022 was needed to mount a full defense and test the plaintiff’s credibility. The defendants asserted that pre-2016 Facebook usage could have influenced later targeting and ad delivery, and that the plaintiff’s continued use of Facebook for housing searches in 2025 (for her son) was directly tied to the allegations and the request for injunctive relief. They maintained that, given the plaintiff’s extended Facebook history, they needed the “complete” dataset for all relevant periods.
The Court rejected this position. Justice Bisson stressed that the defendants already possess an “enormous volume” of Facebook data for the plaintiff covering the entire class period, including her activity, preferences, search history, and ad interactions. That dataset alone comprises several hundred documents, offering a comprehensive view of how the plaintiff used Facebook and how she interacted with employment and housing content during the relevant timeframe.
In this context, the Court found no concrete justification for extending discovery to data before April 2016 and after December 2022. The requested extraneous DYI files do not relate directly to the certified issues, which are expressly anchored in that defined class period. The defendants failed to specify which precise elements from outside the class period might be material, offering only broad and generalized assertions tied to targeting logic and ongoing usage. Given the breadth and sensitivity of DYI contents and the lack of a clear, targeted rationale, the Court characterized the requests as an abusive fishing expedition rather than a legitimate, narrowly tailored search for relevant evidence.

Impact of the authorization decision and class period on discovery

The Court emphasized that in a class action, the authorization judgment and its defined parameters constrain discovery. The class period and the collective questions establish the boundaries of what evidence is presumptively relevant. Here, the claims, class definition, and relief sought are anchored to Facebook’s alleged discriminatory practices in distributing job and housing ads between April 11, 2016 and December 22, 2022. Requests that step beyond those dates must be supported by specific, persuasive reasons showing direct materiality to the issues as pleaded.
Because the defendants already hold substantial data for the entire class period and did not identify narrowly circumscribed categories of pre-2016 or post-2022 data essential to a particular defense, the Court concluded that the additional DYI disclosure sought would not meaningfully contribute to resolving the issues. Instead, it would unduly enlarge the scope of discovery, burden the plaintiff with further disclosure of highly personal information, and potentially chill privacy interests without adequate justification.

Treatment of the privacy-based objections relating to Messenger

As for Objections 5, 6, and 7, which challenged questions tied to exhibits drawn from Facebook Messenger, the Court noted that the plaintiff ultimately answered the questions at the examination and, by the time of the hearing, no longer insisted on a ruling. In her written argument plan, the plaintiff effectively acknowledged the relevance of those questions, and at the hearing she expressly withdrew these objections.
Because the questions were answered and the plaintiff did not pursue an immediate judicial determination on those privacy objections, the Court declined to rule substantively on them. Justice Bisson underscored that the Court is not there to offer advisory opinions. If similar objections arise later in a different procedural context, they can then be argued and adjudicated as needed, including any nuanced assessment of waiver of privacy rights or the scope of consent regarding Messenger content in DYI files.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences

In the result, the Superior Court dismissed the defendants’ Notice of a Case Management Conference for the Adjudication of Objections. It formally maintained Objections 4 and 13, thereby upholding the plaintiff’s refusal to disclose DYI data for periods before 2016 and after 2022. The Court refused to extend discovery beyond the certified class period and found that the defendants’ broad DYI requests outside that window were neither relevant nor properly justified, amounting instead to an impermissible fishing expedition. As for Objections 5, 6, and 7, relating to Messenger-based exhibits, the Court rendered no conclusions because the plaintiff had withdrawn them and the questions had already been answered.
On costs, the Court recognized that the plaintiff succeeded on Objections 4 and 13 but noted that she had effectively compelled the defendants to respond to arguments on objections she subsequently abandoned (5, 6, and 7). Balancing these considerations, Justice Bisson dismissed the defendants’ case management notice but awarded no judicial costs to either side. The successful party in this decision is the plaintiff, Lyse Beaulieu, whose key relevance objections were upheld. However, there was no monetary judgment on the merits of the class action and no award of damages or costs. The total monetary amount ordered in favor of the successful party in this particular judgment is zero, and any future damages or cost awards will depend on subsequent merits determinations in the underlying discrimination class action.