Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Overlapping national and provincial class actions concerning allegedly defective high-voltage lithium-ion batteries in certain Ford Escape and Lincoln Corsair vehicles prompted a lis pendens and case management issue.
• The Court examined whether article 3137 CCQ permitted a stay of the Quebec class action in favour of a prior, broader British Columbia class proceeding encompassing Quebec residents.
• Identification of the “same parties,” “same subject” and “same facts” between the Quebec and British Columbia actions was central, given the inclusion of Quebec putative class members in the national BC class.
• The alignment of causes of action, including claims under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and the mirroring of alleged faults and breaches across both actions was a decisive evidentiary consideration.
• Protection of Quebec residents’ rights under article 577 CPC was assessed through the presence of Quebec class counsel in the BC consortium and the pleading of Quebec law within the BC action.
• Principles of proportionality, efficiency, mutual comity between provincial courts, and the avoidance of conflicting judgments ultimately justified a consensual stay of the Quebec proceeding without costs.

Background and facts of the dispute

The proceedings arise out of alleged defects in high-voltage lithium-ion batteries installed in certain plug-in hybrid vehicles manufactured and sold by Ford. The vehicles include model year 2020 to 2024 Ford Escape and model year 2021 to 2024 Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. These vehicles are equipped with what is described as a defective high-voltage lithium-ion battery and are the subject of recall 24S79, issued on 20 December 2024 by Ford Motor Company and/or Ford of Canada Company Limited. In Quebec, the plaintiff, Mohan Monany, filed an Application for authorization to institute a class action and to obtain the status of representative on 24 April 2025. The proposed Quebec class includes any person who leased on a long-term basis or purchased, in the province of Quebec, one of the affected Ford Escape or Lincoln Corsair vehicles, or who was affected by recall 24S79. The Quebec action alleges, among other things, faults and breaches relating to the recall and the alleged defect in the battery system, with claims framed under Quebec law, including the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The case is structured as a consumer class action intended to obtain reparation for injury said to have been suffered by owners and lessees of the affected vehicles in Quebec.

Parallel class proceedings in British Columbia

Before the Quebec application was filed, a putative national class action had already been commenced in British Columbia. On 9 April 2025, the proceeding Pardeep Kumar Sharma v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under court file number VLC-S-S-252762. In the British Columbia action, the applicant seeks to represent a broad class comprised of all British Columbia residents, and all other persons resident in Canada, who own, owned, lease and/or leased an “Affected Class Vehicle.” The defined term “Affected Class Vehicle” expressly includes the same model year 2020–2024 Ford Escape and 2021–2024 Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring plug-in hybrid vehicles with the allegedly defective high-voltage lithium-ion battery that are at issue in the Quebec proceeding. The BC class definition also carves out certain categories, such as employees, officers, directors, and agents of the defendants and their family members, class counsel, presiding judges and persons who have commenced an individual proceeding or given a release concerning the same subject matter. In substance, the BC class is designed as a national class that encompasses the Quebec putative class members, such that Quebec residents would fall within the broader Canadian group described in the certification materials to be considered by the British Columbia court.

Overlap of parties, facts, and subject matter

The defendant, Ford du Canada limitée (also identified in the BC materials as Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited), sought a stay of the Quebec action on the basis that the British Columbia action was commenced first and that it covers the same essential dispute. The Court analyzed the requirements of article 3137 of the Civil Code of Québec, which permits a stay of proceedings when another action between the same parties, based on the same facts and having the same subject, is already pending elsewhere. The Court noted that the BC action was brought before the Quebec action. The Court also found that the parties materially overlapped: the putative members of the Quebec action are included in the BC action’s putative class, and the corporate defendant in Quebec, Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, is also a defendant in the BC proceeding. In addition, both proceedings are grounded in the same key factual allegations. Each action concerns the issuance of recall 24S79 and the alleged defect in the high-voltage lithium-ion battery of the same categories of Ford Escape and Lincoln Corsair plug-in hybrid vehicles. The subject matter of both cases is likewise parallel. Each is a proposed class action seeking authorization (in Quebec) or certification (in British Columbia) for claims aimed at compensating class members for harm allegedly caused by similar faults and breaches, including alleged contraventions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. The Court considered that the BC action could lead to a decision capable of recognition in Quebec and that such a decision could exhaust the claims of Quebec residents related to the alleged defects and recall.

Protection of Quebec residents’ rights and the role of Quebec law

A central legal concern was whether staying the Quebec action would nonetheless respect the rights and interests of Quebec residents within the meaning of article 577 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs Quebec class actions and the protection of class members. The Court underscored that the causes of action asserted in the BC proceeding largely mirror those in the Quebec action. Not only are the factual predicates similar, but the legal claims of Quebec residents under Quebec law are also expressly pleaded in the British Columbia materials, including claims under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. This pleading of Quebec statutory rights in another province’s class action framework was an important safeguard, as it means that Quebec consumers’ distinct statutory protections are not abandoned in the national proceeding. The Court also stressed that class counsel from the Quebec action will form part of the consortium conducting the British Columbia case. Their participation ensures that lawyers familiar with Quebec law and with the interests of Quebec consumers will actively prosecute the BC action. This structural feature reassured the Court that Quebec residents’ rights would be defended in the British Columbia forum despite the stay of their home-province proceeding.

Procedural undertakings and judicial comity

The Application to Stay the Quebec Action was presented with the consent of the respondent in the Quebec proceeding, demonstrating procedural alignment between the parties on the appropriateness of a stay. As part of the arrangement, the parties undertook to keep the Quebec Superior Court informed about the progress of the British Columbia action. Specifically, they agreed to provide semi-annual updates on the status of the BC case and to notify the Quebec Court within 30 days of any significant development in British Columbia that might affect the course of the stayed Quebec action. These undertakings are designed to preserve the supervisory role of the Quebec Court and to ensure that any outcome or procedural evolution in British Columbia that has implications for Quebec residents will be promptly brought to the attention of the Quebec judge. The Court emphasized that staying the Quebec action accords with fundamental principles of proportionality and efficiency in the conduct of class actions. A single, national proceeding avoids duplication of evidence, inconsistent procedural rulings, and the resource strain of parallel authorization and certification contests. The Court further referred to the principle of mutual comity between courts of different provinces and to the proper administration of justice, which favor coordinated management of overlapping multi-jurisdictional class actions rather than fragmented litigation in multiple forums.

Ruling and overall outcome

In its dispositive portion, the Superior Court granted the Application to Stay the Quebec Action. The Court ordered that all proceedings related to the Application for authorization to institute a class action and to obtain the status of representative in Quebec be stayed for a period ending sixty days after a final judgment on certification is rendered in the British Columbia action (court docket number VLC-S-S-252762) and all proceedings related to that certification process are completed. The Court also took note of the parties’ undertakings to provide semi-annual status updates and to advise of any significant developments in the British Columbia case that could affect the Quebec proceedings. Importantly, the judgment specifies that the stay is ordered “without legal costs,” meaning there is no award of costs in favour of either party and no damages or monetary compensation is granted at this stage. As a result, the successful party on this application is the side supporting the stay—effectively Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited and the moving party for the stay—yet there is no total monetary award, costs, or damages ordered in its favour; the amount cannot be determined because this procedural decision deals solely with a stay of proceedings and expressly provides for no legal costs.