Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Both defendants disputed whether disengagement forms signed by workers during the 2013 opt-out period validly excluded them from the class action.
   
• Age eligibility became contested for three claimants who were under 16 years old on the disruption date.
   
• Contractors' recoverable wage indemnities required interpretation against collective agreement provisions capping compensable hours.
   
• Corporate dissolution raised questions about whether defunct companies retained standing to pursue claims.
   
• Class counsel sought to establish contractors' right to amend claims to add new heads of damage.
   
• Contradictory claims between workers and contractors needed a resolution mechanism the parties negotiated by agreement.
   

Facts of the case

N. Turenne Brique et Pierre inc. and Construction Marc Carrier inc. represent two class actions arising from illegal strikes that disrupted or closed Quebec construction worksites on October 21, 24, and 25, 2011. The disruptions followed the introduction of a bill aimed at eliminating union hiring placement in the construction industry. The first class action, authorized in April 2013 against FTQ-Construction, was allowed in 2020, with the Superior Court finding FTQ-Construction liable for a fault of omission in not calling its members back to work before October 25, 2011. On appeal in 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld liability but ordered individual, rather than collective, recovery for workers who were prevented from working and for contractors who paid wages without receiving a work contribution. A second class action was authorized in May 2024 against the Corporation du Conseil provincial du Québec des métiers de la construction (the "Inter") on the same facts; the Inter later consented to the conclusions against FTQ-Construction, and both actions were folded into a single claims process. By April 2026, over 20,000 individual claims had been filed with the claims administrator under a court-approved protocol, and the defendants raised several grounds of opposition to specific categories of claims, which the Superior Court addressed in this case management judgment.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Several statutory and contractual provisions framed the Tribunal's analysis. Under the former Code of Civil Procedure, articles 1005 to 1007 governed the exclusion process for class members, requiring notice to the court clerk within a peremptory period set by the authorizing judgment. Article 1479 of the Civil Code of Québec addresses a claimant's duty to mitigate loss. On corporate dissolution, article 306 of the Quebec Business Corporations Act, article 226 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, and article 59 of the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises all provide that a dissolved company remains a party to proceedings begun before its dissolution, while articles 365 QBCA and 209 CBCA allow a dissolved company to be revived. On claim amendments, articles 206 and 207 of the current Code of Civil Procedure govern when an amendment may be refused. The collective agreements applicable to the residential, industrial, institutional/commercial, and civil engineering and roadwork sectors set out minimum wage indemnities—generally four or five hours—payable to workers who report to a worksite without prior notice that their services were not needed.

Reasoning and analysis

On the disengagement forms, the Tribunal found FTQ-Construction's forms did not meet the statutory exclusion requirements because they were never filed with the court clerk within the authorized opt-out period, and because the forms themselves failed to disclose the consequences of signing—unlike the court-approved notice to members, which explained the right to opt out and its effects. The Tribunal distinguished this situation from Thiel v. Meta Platforms inc., where members had unambiguously expressed intent to exclude themselves but sent forms to the wrong address; here, no equivalent unequivocal intent was shown. Nonetheless, the Tribunal recognized that some signed forms contained admissions—such as claimants stating they suffered no loss or were unemployed on the relevant dates—that could still be used to oppose those specific claims. Turning to underage claimants, the Tribunal applied a rebuttable factual presumption that persons under 16 were not members of the workers' group, given compulsory school attendance, while allowing claimants to present testimonial evidence to overcome that presumption in individual circumstances. On the collective agreement caps, the Tribunal held that contractors' recoverable wages for hours paid without a work contribution were limited to the amounts required under the applicable agreements—four hours for the residential sector, four hours and fifteen minutes for the industrial and institutional/commercial sectors (as an average reflecting that some trades were entitled to five hours), and five hours for the civil engineering and roadwork sector—based on the contractors' duty to mitigate their losses under article 1479 C.c.Q. On corporate dissolution, the Tribunal held that dissolved companies retain the capacity to file claims despite losing legal personality, distinguishing the right to claim from the ultimate right to collect any resulting indemnity, which would revert to Revenu Québec or the federal Crown absent corporate revival. On claim amendments, the Tribunal found the Protocol's silence on amendments reflected an oversight rather than a deliberate exclusion, and permitted contractors to amend claims subject to a new sworn statement and a structured opposition procedure for the defendants.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Tribunal allowed both parties' case management notices in part. It declared that the disengagement forms did not constitute valid exclusions or waivers, rejecting FTQ-Construction's opposition on that basis, though it authorized FTQ-Construction to file new, narrower notices of opposition against specific claimants whose forms indicated they had suffered no loss. It dismissed the claims of the three underage claimants identified in the record while establishing a rebuttable presumption for future similar claims. It capped contractors' recoverable wage indemnities at four hours (residential sector), four hours and fifteen minutes (industrial and institutional/commercial sectors), and five hours (civil engineering and roadwork sector). It rejected the defendants' opposition to claims filed by dissolved companies, allowing those claims to proceed. It granted contractors the right to amend their claims under a defined procedure, and recorded the parties' agreement resolving contradictory claims between workers and contractors, under which the worker's claim takes precedence and the worker receives an eight-hour wage indemnity. The judgment was rendered without legal costs to either side.