Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Lucie Dufour seeks authorization to bring a class action against Google Canada Corporation and Google LLC for allegedly permitting fraudulent cryptocurrency investment advertisements on its platforms.
• She claims to have transferred $31,500 to alleged fraudsters after clicking on a YouTube advertisement featuring Mark Carney promoting cryptocurrency returns.
• Google challenged the authorization application on the grounds that the allegations were vague and imprecise, and that exhibit P-2 was selective and incomplete.
• Two supplementary documents (R-1 and R-2) were filed to chronologically organize the WhatsApp exchanges between Dufour and the alleged fraudsters, and the court admitted them as appropriate evidence.
• At issue was whether Google could also conduct an oral examination of the plaintiff prior to the authorization hearing.
• Only two of the three proposed written examination questions were permitted, as the third was found to be exploratory and unrelated to the authorized subjects.

Facts of the case

On September 8, 2025, Lucie Dufour filed an application to authorize a class action on behalf of all persons in Québec who suffered financial loss after viewing and clicking on fraudulent, false, or misleading advertisements on a platform or social network owned or operated by Google relating to returns on cryptocurrency or other digital currency transactions, and who transferred funds to entities or individuals displaying such advertisements. Dufour alleges that she clicked on a YouTube advertisement featuring Mark Carney and promises of impressive cryptocurrency investment returns. Through that advertisement, she claims to have been put in contact with alleged fraudsters, to whom she transferred $31,500 over several transactions during a period of approximately three months, from the end of May to August 2025.

Allegations against Google

Dufour alleges that by permitting the dissemination of false or fraudulent advertising, Google committed a fault by contravening the Consumer Protection Act (L.p.c.) and the Competition Act. More specifically, she contends that Google was negligent in allowing this type of advertising to proliferate and in failing to put in place adequate control measures. In support of her authorization application, Dufour filed exhibit P-2, which contains screenshots of WhatsApp messages exchanged with the alleged fraudsters, as well as web pages.

Procedural background

On April 7, 2026, Google notified an application for appropriate evidence and permission to examine the plaintiff. Google argued that the allegations in the authorization application were vague and imprecise, preventing the court from properly analyzing the criteria under article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.). Google further argued that exhibit P-2 was selective and incomplete, with certain exchanges omitted or deleted. In response, Dufour produced two additional documents — exhibit R-1, setting out the chronological exchanges between her and individuals identified as Daniel Volk and David Cooper, and exhibit R-2, setting out the chronological exchanges between her and an individual identified as Benjamin Clark.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court applied the principles governing applications for appropriate evidence and preliminary examinations of plaintiffs in class action authorization proceedings, as summarized in Jean-Antoine c. Samsung Electronics Canada inc., 2025 QCCS 418. Under these principles, an examination is appropriate only if it is essential to verifying the criteria under article 575 C.p.c., and must respect the principles of reasonable conduct and proportionality under articles 18 and 19 C.p.c. An examination aimed at conducting a pre-inquiry into the allegations or the quality of the evidence supporting them should not be authorized.

On the question of exhibits R-1 and R-2, the court found that these documents provided necessary context to exhibit P-2, which was voluminous and consisted of a disorganized mix of texts, screenshots, and images. The court held that R-1 and R-2 filled a factual gap in the authorization application and were necessary for analyzing the authorization criteria. The court clarified, however, that this ruling did not predetermine the evidentiary weight of the admitted materials.

On the question of examination, the court found that Google's proposed 45-minute examination — covering the advertisement, all communications with the alleged fraudsters, and the circumstances of the financial loss including the involvement of Dufour's bank and third parties — did not meet the required criteria. The court identified only two matters as genuinely necessary for the authorization analysis: the date on which Dufour clicked on the advertisement, and the pathway by which she came to be in contact with the alleged fraudsters, given that the advertisement itself could not be produced. The court accordingly authorized only two of the three proposed written questions, rejecting the third as exploratory and unconnected to the authorized subjects.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partially granted Google's application. It admitted exhibits R-1 and R-2 as appropriate evidence and authorized a written examination of Dufour limited to two questions, already transmitted to the parties on June 9, 2026. Dufour was ordered to respond by sworn declaration in accordance with article 224 C.p.c. within seven days of the judgment. The questions and answers are to be filed on the record and form part of the evidence available at the authorization stage. The decision was rendered without costs. As this is an interlocutory procedural ruling rather than a final judgment on the merits, no monetary award, damages, or costs were granted to either party.