Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Quebec Superior Court authorized a class action against Chocmod Canada Inc. solely for the purpose of implementing a national settlement.
   
• Plaintiffs Tom Vergados and Philippe Comtois sought certification on behalf of Canadian purchasers of Truffettes de France products.
   
• Central to the case was whether the defendant engaged in unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive practices in the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its products.
   
• A subsequent judgment addressed an amendment to the settlement agreement made to correct inconsistencies identified before the notice was distributed to class members.
   
• Notice, claim, and opt-out procedures were approved to inform class members of their rights, including the right to exclude themselves from the settlement.
   
• Both parties consented to each application, and the court reserved its final decision on the settlement's fairness for a later hearing.
   

Facts of the case

Tom Vergados and Philippe Comtois brought a proposed class action against Chocmod Canada Inc. in the Quebec Superior Court, District of Montreal. On July 6, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking authorization of the class action for settlement purposes, approval of the notice and notice program, approval of the claim and opt-out forms, appointment of class counsel, and provisional appointment of a settlement administrator. This followed an application to authorize the class action dated April 7, 2025, as amended on July 28, 2025. The parties had executed a national out-of-court settlement on or about May 5, 2026, filed as Exhibit R-1. Counsel for both the plaintiffs and the defendant consented to the application. In a second judgment issued July 17, 2026, the court addressed a further development: after the initial authorization judgment but before the notice was disseminated to the class, the parties identified inconsistencies in the settlement agreement and executed an amendment dated July 15, 2026, under Section 11.14 of the settlement agreement. Both class counsel and defence counsel consented to this amendment as well.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The court's authorization relied on articles 574, 575, 576, 579, 580, 581, 585, 590, and 591 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with particular reliance on article 575, which sets out the four criteria for authorizing a class action. The settlement class was defined as all persons residing in Canada who purchased one or more Truffettes de France products during the class period, excluding the defendant and its directors, officers, parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, entities in which the defendant or its affiliates hold a controlling interest, the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of each of the foregoing, and any person who files a valid and timely opt-out form. For settlement purposes only, the court identified the common issue as whether the defendant engaged in unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices regarding the manufacturing, distribution, marketing, advertising, representations, promotion, packaging, labelling, and sale of the Truffettes de France products. The amendment judgment turned on Section 1.15 of the settlement agreement, which defines "Class Period," and Section 11.14, which governs amendments to the agreement; the amended definition of "Class Period" was declared to apply for purposes of both the original authorization judgment and the amendment judgment.

Reasoning and analysis

In the July 8, 2026 judgment, the court found that the four criteria under article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure for authorizing a class action were satisfied, and it proceeded on that basis given the parties' joint request and consent. The court reviewed and approved the French and English short-form and long-form notices, filed as Exhibits R-2 and R-3, along with the claim form and opt-out form, filed as Exhibits R-4 and R-5 respectively, finding these substantially conformed to the versions submitted. Angeion Group was appointed as settlement administrator on a provisional basis, and Actis Law Group Inc. was appointed as class counsel. The court also set a final approval hearing for November 3, 2026, at which it will determine whether the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of class members, whether class counsel's application for fees, disbursements, and taxes should be granted, and any other appropriate matters. For the July 17, 2026 judgment, the court considered that the parties had identified inconsistencies in the settlement agreement before the notice was disseminated and had corrected them through a consented amendment; class counsel and defence counsel submitted that the amendment was fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class. On that basis, and with both parties' consent, the court granted the application and took act of the amendment, declaring that the amended definitions, including the revised "Class Period," would apply to both judgments. The court preserved the earlier appointment of the plaintiffs as class representatives, clarifying only that the term "Class Period" in that appointment must now be read in accordance with the amended Section 1.15.

Ruling and overall outcome

Both applications were granted on consent. In the July 8, 2026 judgment, the court authorized the bringing of the class action against Chocmod Canada Inc. for settlement purposes only, approved the notice, notice program, claim form, and opt-out form, appointed Actis Law Group Inc. as class counsel, and appointed Angeion Group as settlement administrator on a provisional basis, with the judgment to be vacated if the settlement agreement is terminated. In the July 17, 2026 judgment, the court granted the application to take act of the July 15, 2026 amendment and ordered that the notice be disseminated in accordance with the amended notice plan no later than thirty days following the July 8, 2026 judgment. Neither judgment specifies a monetary amount awarded, ordered, or granted to either party; both close with the notation that they are rendered "without legal costs." No exact monetary figure can be determined from either document, as both concern procedural authorization and amendment of a settlement framework rather than an assessment of damages.