Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Olivier Phanor filed a class action against DoorDash Technologies Canada Inc., alleging systematic misrepresentation of delivery times in violation of Articles 41, 219, and 228 of the Consumer Protection Act (L.p.c.).
• Central to the court's analysis was whether the coupon-style settlement — a $1 automatic credit per eligible member — was just, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members under Article 590 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Proving that DoorDash's estimated delivery times were legally binding posed a significant evidentiary challenge, as delays varied based on distance, merchant, and weather conditions, making the common nature of the harm difficult to establish.
• Contested at the approval hearing was the scope of the release clause, with the Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives arguing it extended beyond the claims authorized in the class action.
• Class counsel fees of $150,000 plus applicable taxes — representing approximately 25% of the total settlement credits — were assessed under Article 102 of the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers and found to be just and reasonable.
• No change in DoorDash's commercial practices formed part of the settlement, which the court noted as an unfavorable factor but one outweighed by the overall benefits of the agreement.

Facts of the case

On June 6, 2025, Olivier Phanor filed an application to authorize a class action against DoorDash Technologies Canada Inc. ("DoorDash") before the Superior Court of Québec (Class Actions Division), docket number 500-06-001384-250. The plaintiff alleged that DoorDash made false representations regarding delivery times displayed on its mobile application and website, in violation of Articles 41, 219, and 228 of the Consumer Protection Act (L.p.c.). Specifically, Phanor contended that DoorDash systematically modified and extended the initially announced delivery time at the very last step of the transaction — immediately before order confirmation. The proposed class encompassed all persons who completed a transaction on the DoorDash platform in Québec between June 6, 2022 and January 9, 2026, whose delivery exceeded the initially announced time by more than 15 minutes.

Settlement terms and contractual clauses at issue

On November 20, 2025, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (the "Agreement"). Under the Agreement, each eligible member — defined as a Québec resident whose order was delivered more than 15 minutes beyond the originally announced time and who held an active DoorDash account at the time of credit attribution — would automatically receive a $1 credit deposited directly into their DoorDash Wallet. The credit would be applied automatically to the member's next order, was valid for an unlimited duration provided the member remained a DoorDash customer, could not be transferred, and was usable on most products except alcohol. No claims process or registration was required. The total value of credits to be distributed was approximately $593,576, corresponding to 593,576 eligible members, out of 929,755 members who received the settlement notice. On January 9, 2026, the court authorized the action for settlement purposes only and approved distribution of settlement notices by email.

A central dispute arose over the Agreement's release clause, which defined "Released Claims" broadly to include all claims of any nature arising from or relating to the facts alleged in the litigation — encompassing claims under tort law, contract law, or any other applicable federal or provincial legislation. The Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives (the "Fonds") intervened, arguing that the release went beyond the scope of the authorized class action, which was limited to false representation claims under the L.p.c. The Fonds relied on Thiel c. Meta Platforms inc., 2025 QCCS 1852, where the court had refused to approve a settlement whose release extended to claims explicitly excluded from the class action.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court assessed the settlement against eight criteria established in jurisprudence for evaluating whether a class action settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of members, noting that these criteria are not cumulative and must be assessed holistically. The court found the first two criteria — the terms and conditions of the settlement, and the probability of success on the merits — to be the most determinative.

On the coupon-style settlement, the court applied the specialized analytical framework for such arrangements. It found that individual harm per member was modest — averaging between $0.62 for DashPass users and $2.07 for non-DashPass users in delivery fees paid — rendering the $1 credit a reasonable compensation. The court noted favorably that approximately 68% of members had placed more than one order during the class period, indicating a high likelihood that the credit would be used. It also found favorably that the credit was deposited automatically, required no claims process, was available for an unlimited period, and was usable across a wide range of products. Unfavorable factors included the absence of a compensation alternative, the requirement to make a new purchase to use the credit, and the absence of any change in DoorDash's commercial practices.

On the release clause, the court distinguished the present case from Thiel, where compensatory damages had been explicitly excluded from the scope of the authorized action. Here, the court found that the release was anchored to the facts alleged in the proceedings and did not deprive class members of any recourse unrelated to the litigation. Support was drawn from prior decisions in Leung c. DoorDash Technologies Canada Inc., 2022 QCCS 1083, and Vaillancourt c. Doordash Technologies Canada inc., 2025 QCCS 1395, where similarly worded releases were accepted. The court concluded that the scope of the release did not exceed the causes of action tied to the claims advanced in the litigation.

Regarding the probability of success, the court acknowledged that DoorDash had signaled vigorous opposition and that proving the legally binding nature of estimated delivery times — which varied based on distance, merchant, and weather — would have been difficult, particularly at the authorization stage. The settlement, reached before even the preliminary motions phase, offered members certain and immediate recovery while avoiding the risks and costs of prolonged litigation.

On legal fees, the court considered the fee agreement signed by the representative plaintiff on June 3, 2025, which provided for extrajudicial fees of 30% of any amount recovered plus disbursements. The fees claimed of $150,000 plus applicable taxes represented approximately 25% of the $593,576 in credits to be distributed — below the contractual rate and within the acceptable jurisprudential range of 15% to 33%. The court found that the experience of class counsel, the risks assumed, and the significance of the result all supported approval.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court, per Justice Eleni Yiannakis, approved the settlement agreement in its entirety as just, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of class members. The plaintiff, Olivier Phanor, and the class members prevailed, with DoorDash ordered to distribute automatic $1 credits totaling approximately $593,576 to 593,576 eligible members. DoorDash was further ordered to pay class counsel fees of $150,000 plus applicable taxes, and disbursements of $2,011 including taxes — amounts confirmed to be separate from and in addition to the total settlement credits — bringing the combined total to $745,587 plus applicable taxes on the fees portion, noting that the judgment does not consolidate these figures into a single stated grand total. The parties were ordered to apply for a closing judgment within 90 days of finalizing the settlement's execution and to transmit the administration report to the Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives. The whole was granted without costs.