Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Arie Elbaz filed a motion to authorize a class action against U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltée, alleging that the company falsely represented that its rental vehicles were equipped with winter tires during applicable winter periods.
• Central statutory issues involve alleged violations of Articles 41, 42, and 228 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act (LPC), which prohibit false or misleading merchant representations and require disclosure of material facts.
• Admissibility of bailiff reports (constats d'huissier) was contested by U-Haul on grounds of procedural non-compliance and irrelevance; the court allowed their use at the authorization stage under relaxed evidentiary rules.
• Punitive damages were raised as a live issue, grounded in both the LPC and Article 49 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, based on allegations that U-Haul acted with full knowledge of the risks posed by non-winter tires.
• Common questions of fact and law were found to be sufficiently shared among group members, including whether U-Haul failed to equip vehicles with winter tires and whether its public declarations on the matter were false.
• Adequacy of representation was satisfied, as the plaintiff demonstrated a personal interest, took preparatory steps, and retained counsel specializing in class actions.

Facts of the case

On January 10, 2025, Arie Elbaz filed a motion to authorize a class action in damages against U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltée before the Superior Court of Quebec (Class Actions Division), with the motion subsequently amended on February 24, 2025, and again on April 17, 2026. The proposed class covered all natural and legal persons in Quebec who rented a U-Haul vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4,500 kg that was not equipped with winter tires during any of the following periods: December 1 to March 15 of each year from 2021–2022 through 2024–2025. The plaintiff sought to add a further period — December 1, 2025 to March 15, 2026 — at the authorization hearing, which the court allowed. Elbaz alleged that he personally rented a U-Haul vehicle that was fitted with all-season tires rather than winter tires, contrary to the company's representations, and that he would not have contracted with U-Haul had he known the true situation. He alleged suffering damages including excess fuel consumption. The group was estimated to include at least 216 persons, based on registrations on a website dedicated to the action.

Statutory provisions and contractual context

The claim rested on three provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (LPC). Article 41 requires that goods or services conform to any declaration or advertisement made about them by the merchant. Article 42 provides that written or verbal declarations made by a merchant's representative about a good or service are binding on the merchant. Article 228 prohibits any merchant from concealing a material fact in a representation to a consumer. Additionally, Article 216 LPC defines "representation" broadly to include affirmations, conduct, and omissions. The plaintiff also invoked Article 219 LPC, which broadly prohibits false or misleading representations by any means, and Article 1 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of the right to security. Under Article 272 LPC, a violation of a merchant's statutory obligations creates an absolute presumption of prejudice to the consumer, potentially opening the door to punitive damages without the need for separate proof of harm.

Reasoning and analysis

The court first addressed the proposed amendment to extend the class period to include December 1, 2025 to March 15, 2026. Applying Article 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the liberal standard affirmed in Raymond Chabot Administrateur provisoire inc. c. Ventilation RS Air inc. (2017 QCCA 1107), the court found the amendment appropriate: it did not delay proceedings, was not contrary to the interests of justice, and did not introduce an entirely new claim. The court then turned to U-Haul's objection to the bailiff reports, which documented tire types observed at several of the defendant's locations. U-Haul argued the bailiffs had failed to comply with Articles 11 and 12 of the Act Respecting Bailiffs by presenting themselves as consumers rather than as officers of the court, and that the reports were inadmissible hearsay. The court rejected this objection at the authorization stage, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Haroch c. Toronto-Dominion Bank (2023 QCCA 1282), which confirmed that evidentiary rules are relaxed at authorization and that potentially inadmissible evidence may be considered to assess whether the proposed legal syllogism is arguable — not to prove facts on the merits.

On the merits of the authorization criteria under Article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court applied the low threshold affirmed in Royer c. Capital One (Canada Branch) (2025 QCCA 217): it is sufficient to show a "defensible cause," meaning a simple possibility of success on the merits, rather than a realistic or reasonable probability. The court found that Elbaz had alleged concrete and specific facts — his personal rental experience, the bailiff reports, newspaper articles, and declarations attributed to a U-Haul representative named Lockridge affirming that the company's rental vehicles were equipped with winter tires — sufficient to establish a defensible claim under Articles 41, 42, and 228 LPC. U-Haul's defenses, including the absence of proven damages, the conformity of its tires with applicable regulations, and the absence of inaccurate representations, were found to be substantive arguments properly addressed at trial rather than at the authorization stage. On punitive damages, the court noted that a violation of Articles 41 and 42 LPC could trigger Article 272 LPC, which carries an absolute presumption of consumer prejudice, and that the allegation of U-Haul having acted with full knowledge of the risks could support a finding of unlawful and intentional infringement of the right to security under Article 49 of the Quebec Charter. These questions were likewise found to be unsuitable for determination at the authorization stage. Common questions were identified, including whether U-Haul failed to equip its vehicles with winter tires, whether it violated Articles 41, 42, and 228 LPC, whether it infringed the right to security under the Charter, and whether group members are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. The court also noted that, consistent with the three-year limitation period, the class action's scope was to begin on January 10, 2022.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court, presided over by Justice Lukasz Granosik, granted the motion and authorized the class action on May 20, 2026. Arie Elbaz was designated as the representative of the class, defined as all natural and legal persons in Quebec who rented a U-Haul vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating under 4,500 kg not equipped with winter tires during the periods from January 10, 2022 to March 15, 2022, and December 1 to March 15 of each year from 2022–2023 through 2025–2026. The plaintiff was the successful party at this stage. No specific monetary amount was ordered or awarded at this juncture — the quantum of compensatory and punitive damages remains to be determined at the merits stage, with collective recovery to be ordered if the evidence permits. Costs of the authorization proceedings were awarded against U-Haul. The action is to be heard in the district of Montreal, and the parties are to appear before the court to determine the terms of notice to class members.