Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the plaintiff could amend the originating application, after authorization of the class action, to correct the corporate designation of a defendant to A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc.
• Application of the principles from Pellemans c. Lacroix (2009 QCCS 1530) and articles 206 and 585 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing post-authorization amendments.
• Interpretation of articles 93 and 94 C.p.c. on party designation, under which a designation is sufficient if it clearly identifies the party even where the true name is uncertain.
• Evidence that the misdescribed defendant always understood it was targeted, including a demand letter sent to A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc., the contract naming the seller "A.S. Lévesque," and Quebec enterprise registry entries showing overlapping business names.
• Approval of the form, content, publication, and individual transmission of notices to class members, with a required mention that non-excluded members will be bound by any judgment or approved settlement.
• Setting of procedural deadlines, including transmission of notices by July 31, 2026, an exclusion deadline of September 11, 2026, and an extended deadline of April 23, 2027 for readying the file.

Facts of the case

On May 25, 2022, Jacques Lemay filed an application for authorization to institute a class action, which was amended several times. The final version named as defendants VR Champlain inc., Roulottes A.S. Lévesque, Le Géant Motorisé, and VR St-Cyr inc. The plaintiff alleged that these recreational vehicle (RV) dealers took advantage of the surge in demand during the pandemic to unilaterally increase the price of their RVs after a contract had been signed, relying on a contractual clause said to contravene the Consumer Protection Act. On March 31, 2023, three of the defendants obtained permission, without opposition, to file the demand letter the plaintiff had sent to A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc. and the contract signed between the plaintiff and Roulottes A.S. Lévesque, designated as the seller. The authorization application was heard on October 23, 2025, and on November 6, 2025 the Court authorized the class action against all the defendants. The plaintiff filed his originating application on December 17, 2025. On May 27, 2026, the plaintiff's lawyers informed the Court that defence counsel had indicated his client, Roulottes AS Lévesque inc., did not consider itself covered by the class action. On June 22, 2026, the plaintiff asked the Court to declare that the defendant Roulottes A. et S. Lévesque and its variant names, including A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc., were parties to the class action.

Contractual clauses and legal provisions at issue

The underlying claim rests on a clause in the defendants' contracts that allegedly allowed them to increase the price of an RV unilaterally after signature, which the plaintiff contends contravenes articles 11.2, 224 and 231 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. The procedural question before the Court, however, turned on the Code of Civil Procedure: article 585 requires court authorization for amendments to a class action; article 206 permits amendments at any time provided they do not delay the proceeding, are not contrary to the interests of justice, and do not result in an entirely new claim unrelated to the original one; article 93 provides that legal persons are designated by the name under which they were constituted or identify themselves; and article 94 states that the designation of a party whose true name is unknown or uncertain is sufficient if it clearly identifies the party.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Martin F. Sheehan applied the principles established in Pellemans c. Lacroix, under which post-authorization amendments must be assessed broadly and liberally against the framework of the authorization judgment, must remain compatible with the class action vehicle, and must not reintroduce conclusions previously refused. Drawing on case law including Dupuis c. De Rosa and Ladouceur c. Howarth, the Court noted that where the record shows the true party has in fact been a party from the outset despite a descriptive error, the correction must be permitted, and that the principle is no different after the expiry of the prescription period. The Court found it beyond doubt that the erroneous designation resulted from an error that should be corrected. Even though the corporate designation was inexact, it had always been clear that the claim also targeted A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc.: a demand letter had been sent to that company and was produced by the defendants themselves; the designation "A.S. Lévesque" appeared in the style of cause of the authorization application; the contract designated the seller as "A.S. Lévesque"; and defence counsel described himself as lawyer for "VR CHAMPLAIN INC., ROULOTTES A.S. LÉVESQUE ET LE GÉANT MOTORISÉS." Any confusion, the Court observed, had been maintained by the defendants. The enterprise registry showed that A.S. Lévesque (1993) inc., VR Champlain inc. (now struck off), and Le Géant Motorisé inc. — the latter resulting from the 2025 merger of Roulottes Lévesque inc. and VR Champlain inc. — all did business under numerous overlapping "Roulottes Lévesque" and "A. et S. Lévesque" names. The companies share common directors and the same lawyers, and A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc. had been aware of the claim since at least the demand letter of March 2022, so the amendment caused it no prejudice, did not delay the proceeding, and did not create an entirely new claim. The Court also addressed the notices to members that should have followed authorization, requiring that they state that members who fail to exclude themselves will be bound by any judgment on the merits or court-approved settlement, and that the distribution protocol favour individual notification where circumstances permit.

Ruling and outcome

The Court authorized the plaintiff to file an amended originating application clarifying the corporate designation of the defendants — VR Champlain inc., A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc., Le Géant Motorisé inc., and VR St-Cyr inc. — and declared that the class action covers Roulottes A. et S. Lévesque and its listed variant names. It approved the form, content, publication, and dissemination of the notices to members, subject to the added exclusion mention and to individual transmission, including by A. et S. Lévesque (1993) inc. by email to each of its clients on record since May 6, 2019. The notices must be sent by July 31, 2026, and the exclusion deadline was fixed at September 11, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. The Court also ratified the case protocol signed by the parties on April 29 and 30, 2026, and extended the deadline for readying the file to April 23, 2027. The outcome favoured the plaintiff, Jacques Lemay, whose requested corrections and declarations were granted; however, this being a procedural judgment, no monetary award was made in his favour, and no exact amount can be determined from the decision. The defendants were ordered to assume the costs and disbursements of publishing and disseminating the notices — except those to be sent by email by the plaintiff's lawyers and those related to their website — with no specific amount stated, and the whole was rendered without legal costs.