Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Hugo-Chicoine Blais seeks authorization of a class action against Meta Platforms Inc. for alleged covert tracking of Android users' web browsing activity without consent.
• Central to the dispute is Meta's alleged use of cookies and Meta Pixel to collect browsing data, link it to user identities, and monetize it for commercial purposes — bypassing Android privacy settings.
• At issue is whether contested portions of two sworn declarations filed by Meta qualify as admissible "appropriate evidence" under article 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the authorization stage.
• Paragraphs 7, 25, and 26 of the Jablonicky declaration and paragraphs 7 to 18 of the Wang declaration were specifically opposed by the applicant.
• Applicable law includes the Civil Code of Québec, the Consumer Protection Act, the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
• Under Quebec class action procedure, appropriate evidence must be essential, indispensable, and limited — it cannot serve merely to contradict the allegations of the authorization application.

Facts of the case

Hugo-Chicoine Blais commenced a proposed class action against Meta Platforms Inc. on behalf of all persons in Quebec who used an Android device with Facebook or Instagram installed to browse the web between September 2024 and June 3, 2025. The applicant alleges that Meta covertly tracked users' web browsing activity on Android devices — without their knowledge or consent — through the use of cookies and a web tracking tool known as Meta Pixel. According to the applicant, Meta used concealed technical processes to circumvent Android's built-in security and privacy settings, enabling it to collect browsing data through its own applications, associate that data with individual user identities, and monetize the information obtained for commercial purposes.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

In anticipation of the authorization hearing, Meta sought to introduce appropriate evidence in the form of two sworn declarations and a series of exhibits. The contested portions of the Jablonicky declaration included: paragraph 7, asserting that Meta does not sell any data transmitted through organizations' integration of Meta Pixel; paragraph 25, stating that Meta's policies and technical systems are designed to honour users' opt-out choices while permitting ad targeting where users remain opted in; and paragraph 26, affirming that Meta provides accessible privacy controls allowing users to manage their activity and opt out of specific data uses for advertising. The contested Wang declaration (paragraphs 7 to 18) addressed the technical functioning of applications, cookies, and privacy protection mechanisms on Android devices, and asserted that Meta scrupulously applies users' privacy choices and has no control over Android's conduct.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court applied the established cumulative criteria governing appropriate evidence under article 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Evidence at this stage must fill a factual gap, must concern neutral and objective facts rather than opinion, must not provoke a debate about the truth or probative force of the authorization application's allegations (unless manifestly disproving them or challenging the court's jurisdiction), and must be proportional. The burden falls on the party seeking to introduce the evidence. Applying these principles, the court found that the contested evidence was aimed primarily at contradicting or nuancing the applicant's allegations — particularly the claims regarding privacy violations and consumer rights — rather than filling a genuine factual gap. The court noted a possible distinction between "selling" and "monetizing" data, but concluded that paragraph 7 of the Jablonicky declaration either amounted to a contradiction of the application's allegations or was irrelevant. As for Wang's technical explanations, the court found they were neither essential nor indispensable at the authorization stage, did not fill a factual gap, and were too detailed to be appropriate at this preliminary phase. The court cautioned that admitting such evidence risked transforming the authorization hearing into a premature, highly technical inquiry into applications, cookies, and bots — an outcome inconsistent with the principle that the applicant's allegations must be taken as proven at this stage, and that no final determination on the merits should be made. The court concluded that all contested elements sought to deny the alleged fault or minimize the extent of inconvenience suffered, without manifestly contradicting the application's allegations, and therefore could not be authorized.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted Meta's application in part. It authorized the filing of the Jablonicky sworn declaration, excluding paragraphs 7, 25, and 26, and authorized the Wang sworn declaration, excluding paragraphs 7 to 18, along with the exhibits attached to the authorized portions. The applicant, Hugo-Chicoine Blais, was the successful party on this procedural motion, as the court rejected the majority of Meta's contested evidence. No monetary award or damages were ordered at this stage, as the decision concerned only the admissibility of evidence at the class action authorization phase. Costs were reserved to follow.