Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether court permission is needed to discontinue an application for authorization remains uncertain, since article 585 C.C.P. applies to authorized class actions and former article 1010.1 was not carried into the new Code.
   
• Quebec's Court of Appeal has left that question unanswered but confirmed that courts must protect putative members and the integrity of the justice system at the pre-authorization stage.
   
• Courts need not examine a plaintiff's reasons for discontinuing unless there is reason to believe the decision could harm the justice system or putative members.
   
• A parallel Ontario class action on the same facts, with a proposed class that includes Quebec members, was authorized, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the defendants' appeal.
   
• Potential Quebec members' rights and interests, the court found, will continue to be adequately protected in the Ontario proceeding.
   
• Publication of the judgment on the plaintiff's counsel's website and in the Superior Court's class action registry was ordered.
   

Facts of the case

Yandrick Prévereau filed an application for authorization to institute a class action against Lundin Mining Corporation, Paul K. Conibear, Marie Inkster and Lukas H. Lundin on January 17, 2018. He sought to represent natural and legal persons residing or domiciled in Quebec who bought or acquired Lundin Mining securities during the class period and still held them at the close of markets on November 29, 2017. The proposed class action alleged that the defendants failed to make timely disclosure of material changes concerning Lundin Mining and its Candelaria mine.

A class action based on the same facts was brought before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by Dov Markovich under file number CV-17-00588044-00CP, and its proposed class includes Quebec members. Quebec's Superior Court stayed the local action pending the outcome in Ontario. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application for authorization on January 6, 2022, but the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal and granted authorization on May 24, 2023. On November 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the defendants' appeal, with a dissent. Prévereau told his lawyers he did not wish to pursue the Quebec action, and an application for permission to discontinue was filed on September 11, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Article 585 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the court's permission to discontinue a class action. Because it sits in the chapter titled "Conduct of the class action," the court found it applies to class actions that have already been authorized. Under the former Code, article 1010.1 extended the provisions governing the conduct of an authorized proceeding, with the necessary adaptations, to the authorization stage, but that provision was not carried over into the new Code. The publication order also relied on article 125 of the Superior Court Directives for the Montreal Division.

Reasoning and analysis

With article 1010.1 gone, the court noted that it remains uncertain whether a plaintiff needs permission to discontinue an application for authorization. Quebec's Court of Appeal, faced with that question in École communautaire Belz c. Bernard, 2021 QCCA 905, concluded it did not need to answer it, a position later cited with approval in Procureur général du Canada c. Pénosway, 2026 QCCA 208. The Court of Appeal did, however, set out guiding principles. Before authorization, the class is not yet defined and consists only of potential members, who are often unaware the application exists because its filing is not publicized; a court can hardly force the plaintiff to continue, nor go looking for a putative member willing to take over. At the same time, the court retains a mission to protect putative members and the integrity of the justice system at the pre-authorization stage. It may require that putative members be informed of the discontinuance and, where applicable, given enough time to bring their own action, and it must ensure the discontinuance does not undermine the system's integrity, as could happen if the applicant or the applicant's lawyers received consideration in exchange for discontinuing.

According to the Court of Appeal, absent any reason to believe the decision could harm the justice system or the interests of putative members, a court need not interfere with or examine the reasons for discontinuing, since that choice belongs to the applicant. Drawing these principles together, the court held that once satisfied the discontinuance does not jeopardize the integrity of the justice system, it must allow it while putting measures in place to protect potential members, measures that will often be limited to ensuring they are notified. The court also found that the rights and interests of potential Quebec members will continue to be adequately protected in the Ontario proceeding.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow the plaintiff's application to discontinue to be filed, granted that application, and authorized Prévereau to file a notice of discontinuance in the court record within ten days of the judgment. Counsel for the plaintiff were ordered to publish the judgment on their website and, within fifteen days, in the Superior Court's class action registry, in accordance with article 125 of the Directives. Prévereau succeeded on his application. The judgment was rendered without legal costs, and no monetary amount was ordered or awarded to any party.