The Superior Court authorizes the institution of a class action against Mazda Canada Inc.; by Pierre-Alexandre Viau
(19/8/2010)
Robitaille v. Mazda Canada Inc., 2010 QCCS 2630
On
The class action, instituted by the Petitioner Richard Robitaille, is based on the manufacturer’s liability, namely: “an action in price reduction, compensatory and punitive damages in order to sanction the Respondent Mazda for a design defect, its wrongful conduct following the discovery of the defect and its illegal commercial practices in connection with the locking mechanism of the Mazda 3 vehicles.” [Our translation]
The principal reproach directed at Mazda is to have installed a defective locking mechanism on the driver’s door of the Mazda 3 models of years 2004 through 2007. The weakness of the locking system enabled the driver’s door to unlock and open with a simple hand pressure or kick in a precise spot. Once Mazda was made aware of this problem, it set up an action program to have installed a safety locking mechanism on the doors. However, the Petitioner alleges that Mazda did not inform the public of these measures which were put in place in order to deal with the problem arising from the malfunctioning locking system on the driver’s door of the Mazda 3 vehicles in question.
During the presentation of the Motion to Authorize a Class Action, Mazda alleged that the motion lacked fundamental questions of fact and law and that the Petitioner was not in a position to ensure an adequate representation of the members. However, these arguments were not followed by the Court.
In his analysis, the Honourable Jacques Viens, J.S.C., first reiterated the general principles applicable to a proceeding in matters of class actions. In doing so, he stated that the class action is a procedural mechanism which permits a collective adjudication of a right and that a class action must be authorized when the four (4) conditions of article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure are met:
“1003. The court authorizes the bringing of the class action and ascribes the status of representative to the member it designates if of opinion that:
(a) the recourses of the members raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact;
(b) the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought;
(c) the composition of the group makes the application of article 59 or 67 difficult or impracticable; and
(d) the member to whom the court intends to ascribe the status of representative is in a position to represent the members adequately.”
The Honourable Jacques Viens, J.S.C., further reiterated that the role of the Court, at the authorization stage, is to ensure that these preliminary conditions (article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure) are simultaneously met. In the present case, the Court concluded that these conditions were met and that the institution of a class action should be authorized, more particularly for the reasons described below.
Firstly, the Court concluded that the Petitioner had established a serious potential for cause of action namely due to the fact that the Mazda 3 vehicles manufactured in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were affected by a defect (i.e., the weakness of the locking system enabled the driver’s door to unlock and open with a simple hand pressure or kick in a precise spot) and this in violation of the legal warranty as to quality. Thus, the Court adopted the Petitioner’s argument to the effect that Mazda manufactured and distributed a model vehicle which presented a defect in manufacture and failed to disclose this information to the public in a timely manner, in breach of articles 1375, 1400, 1401, 1434, 1458, 1726, 1728 1730, 1845 and 1854 of the Civil Code of Québec and sections 37, 38, 53, 54 and 271 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The Superior Court also concluded that the recourses of the members raised identical, similar or related questions of fact and law, linking therefore each member of the groups to the Respondent Mazda. The Honourable Jacques Viens, J.S.C., then analysed the third condition and concluded that since many thousands of Mazda 3 vehicles had been manufactured and distributed by the Respondent between the years 2004 and 2007, it was clearly apparent that the composition of the groups rendered the application of article 59 or 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure difficult or impracticable.
Lastly, the Superior Court determined that the Petitioner Richard Robitaille was in a position to represent adequately the members of the groups on account of all the steps he took as well as the events he experienced and of which he had personal knowledge.
In summary, the Court reached the conclusion that the motion of Petitioner Richard Robitaille satisfied the four (4) conditions of article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently authorized the institution of the class action against Mazda.
The Court therefore granted the Motion to Authorize a Class Action presented by the firm Woods LLP as described below:
“ [101] An action in price reduction, compensatory and punitive damages in order to sanction the Respondent for a design defect, its wrongful conduct following the discovery of the defect and its illegal commercial practices in connection with the locking mechanism of the Mazda 3 vehicles.”[Our translation]
The Court ascribed the Petitioner Richard Robitaille the status of representative of the class action for the following groups:
Group 1 :
“All natural persons and legal persons, accounting for fifty (50) employees or less, domiciled or residing in Quebec, who are or have been lessees, finance lessees or owners of a Mazda 3 brand and model, years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, who have been victims of a theft or theft attempt leaving one or multiple dents around the handle of the driver’s door.” [Our translation]
Group 2 :
“All natural persons and legal persons, accounting for fifty (50) employees or less, domiciled or residing in Quebec, who have become lessees, finance lessees or owners of a Mazda 3 brand and model, years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, on which a safety locking mechanism on the driver’s door was installed, after taking possession of the mentioned vehicle.” [Our translation]
The Honourable Jacques Viens, J.S.C. identified the main questions of fact and law which will be analysed collectively during the hearing on the merits as follows:
“1. Are Mazda 3 vehicles affected by a design defect which affects the locking mechanism of the driver’s door?
2. In the affirmative, which models are affected by this design defect?
2.1 Did the Respondent know or was presumed to know the existence of this defect, as of what date and, in the affirmative, did it commit illegal commercial practices?
2.2 Following the discovery of the defect, did the Respondent commit one or several faults when setting up a program to correct the defect affecting the Mazda 3’s as well as in the disclosure and publication of the corrective measures in question?
3. Does the Respondent’s recall on Mazda 3 vehicles constitute an admission as to the existence of the issue or of this design defect?
4. Did the Petitioner and members of the groups sustain damages resulting from this design defect, from the Respondent’s wrongful conduct and illegal commercial practices?
5. In the affirmative, does the Petitioner and do the members of the groups have a right to claim damages and/or a price reduction of their vehicle from the Respondent?
6. If yes, on what basis and for what amount?
7. Can the owners, lessees, or finance lessees of Mazda 3 vehicles who were not targeted by the recall claim damages from the Respondent?
8. If yes, on what basis and for what amount?
9. Can the Petitioner and members of the groups be awarded punitive and exemplary damages?” [Our translation]
Finally, the Court identified the conclusions sought-after on the merits and which relate to the above-mentioned questions of fact and law as follows:
“1. GRANT the Petitioner’s Motion to Institute Proceedings;
2. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay the Petitioner an amount equivalent to the insurance deductible of $300.00, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
3. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay the Petitioner an amount equivalent to the repair costs for the damages done to his Mazda 3 vehicle, which is $575.43 taxes included, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
4. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the sum of $500.00 for the decrease in value of his vehicle, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
5. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the sum of $500.00 for damages sustained due to troubles, worries and inconvenience, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
5.1 CONDEMN the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the sum of $200.00 for punitive and exemplary damages, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
6. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay each member of the groups a sum equivalent to their insurance deductible, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
7. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay each member of the groups a sum equivalent to the repair costs of their Mazda 3 vehicle, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
8. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay each member of the groups a sum of $500.00 for the decrease in value of their vehicle, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
9. CONDEMN the Respondent to pay each member of the groups a sum equivalent to the damages sustained for their troubles, worries and inconveniences, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
9.1 CONDEMN the Respondent to pay each member of the groups a sum of $200.00 for punitive and exemplary damages, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as per article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated as of the date of service of the Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Be Ascribed the Status of Representative;
10. ORDER the collective recovery of the amount of the aforementioned claims;
11. ORDER that claims of certain members of the groups be treated individually in accordance with articles 1037 to 1040 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
12. CONDEMN the Respondent to all other appropriate remedies considered just and reasonable;” [Our translation]
The matter was pleaded by Mtre. Sébastien Richemont, partner at Woods LLP, and Mtre. David Bourgoin.
Lexpress Archive >>
