Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Allegations that Uber’s platforms enabled charging sales taxes on basic grocery items (eggs and milk) that should be zero-rated under the Quebec Sales Tax Act and federal Excise Tax Act.
• Contest over whether prices charged for 4-litre bags of 2% milk exceeded the maximum retail price set by the Règlement sur les prix du lait de consommation, including whether Uber-facilitated home delivery escapes the maximum price cap.
• Claims of false or misleading representations under the Consumer Protection Act (LPC) about the existence, rate and allocation of sales taxes on tax-exempt basic food products.
• Evidentiary reliance on specific Uber/Uber Eats receipts (notably P-5 and P-11) to show allegedly improper tax charges and milk prices above the regulated maximum.
• Common-issue questions around Uber’s responsibility, as platform operator, for third-party retailers’ tax and pricing practices, and whether Uber is akin to an “entrepreneur indépendant” delivering milk directly to homes under the milk-price regime.
• Procedural assessment of the four criteria in article 575 C.p.c., culminating in authorization of a class action on behalf of Quebec consumers in Groups A and B for collective recovery and potential punitive damages.

Factual background of the proposed class action

Pierre Fortin-Simard filed an application on 26 July 2024 seeking authorization to institute a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec (Class Actions Chamber) against three Uber entities: Uber Canada Inc., Uber Portier Canada Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. The proposed action targets transactions made through the Uber and Uber Eats mobile applications and the website www.ubereats.com by consumers located in Quebec. Two main groups of consumers are defined. Group A consists of all persons who, in Quebec, used Uber, Uber Eats or the website to purchase basic food products that should have been tax-exempt (détaxés) but who nevertheless paid an amount corresponding to sales tax on those products. Group B covers all persons who, in Quebec, used Uber, Uber Eats or the website to buy fluid milk for delivery or in-store pickup and who were charged a retail price exceeding the regulated maximum allowed for consumer milk. The plaintiff alleges three causes of action. First, the Uber defendants allegedly charged, or allowed to be charged, sales tax on non-taxable basic food items in breach of articles 16 and 177 of the Quebec Sales Tax Act (Loi sur la taxe de vente du Québec, TVQ) and the federal Excise Tax Act provisions governing zero-rated food supplies. Second, they allegedly made false or misleading representations to Group A regarding the existence and rate of taxes payable on basic food products, contrary to article 227.1 of the Consumer Protection Act (Loi sur la protection du consommateur, LPC). Third, they allegedly charged, or allowed third-party retailers to charge, more than the maximum retail price for consumer milk set by the Règlement sur les prix du lait de consommation, thereby overcharging Group B members. The factual foundation is illustrated by two key transactions. On 26 February 2023, the plaintiff used the Uber platform to place a pickup order consisting of a dozen eggs and a 4-litre bag of Québon 2% milk costing $11.79 before tax. Both items are alleged to be basic foodstuffs that must be zero-rated (tax-exempt) under the TVQ and the Excise Tax Act, yet the invoice (P-5) shows $1.77 in sales tax added to purchases totalling $20.38, which works out to either 8.68% on the total purchase or 15% on the 4-litre bag of milk priced at $11.79 before tax. In another transaction, documented by invoice P-11 dated 7 November 2023, the plaintiff ordered three 4-litre bags of milk and a carton of 18 eggs from Costco for home delivery via Uber. The pre-tax total for that grocery order is $35.42, and the invoice shows taxes of $2.58, plus a $4.99 service fee, without specifying on which items the tax is calculated. In both instances, the plaintiff claims that the sales tax was improperly applied to basic groceries that should be tax-exempt and, for the milk, that the base price itself exceeded the regulatory ceiling.

Legal framework for basic food tax exemption

The TVQ establishes that the general provincial sales tax rate is 9.975% on the consideration for taxable supplies made in Quebec, but expressly provides that the rate for a “fourniture détaxée” (zero-rated supply) is nil. Basic food and beverages for human consumption are treated as such zero-rated supplies, subject to specific exceptions. Parallel federal provisions in the Excise Tax Act define a “fourniture détaxée” as a supply listed in Schedule VI and stipulate that the tax rate on these zero-rated supplies is 0%. Part III of Schedule VI enumerates basic groceries, including food and beverages meant for human consumption (with specified exclusions not at issue in the plaintiff’s allegations). The plaintiff contends that ordinary eggs and standard 2% milk in 4-litre format fall squarely within the category of zero-rated basic groceries and thus should not bear GST or QST. The disputed invoices, however, show that some form of sales tax was charged, even though it is not clear from the receipts whether GST, QST or both were applied, nor precisely to which items or to the service fees. This evidentiary ambiguity does not preclude an arguable claim, but it underscores that detailed transactional evidence and expert analysis may be required at the merits stage to disentangle how the tax was actually computed by Uber’s systems or by the third-party retailers integrated with the platform.

Milk price regulation and the scope of the maximum retail price

The second pillar of the case concerns price control for consumer milk in Quebec. The Règlement sur les prix du lait de consommation, adopted under the Loi sur la mise en marché des produits agricoles, alimentaires et de la pêche, sets minimum and maximum retail prices for fluid milk in specified regions, with detailed categories (e.g., UHT milk, organic milk, kosher milk, and so-called “value-added” milk). Article 3 of the Regulation prohibits selling milk to a consumer at a price lower than the minimum or higher than the maximum listed in Annex A for the relevant region, but it provides an important carve-out: the upper price limit does not apply to a person who sells milk and “delivers it directly to the consumer’s home.” Article 4 also exempts certain types of milk—UHT, organic, kosher and “value-added” milk—from the upper price limit, defining value-added milk as milk that has undergone specific processing (such as microfiltration or multicentrifugation) or that has particular shelf-life, nutritional or packaging characteristics leading to higher costs compared with regular consumer milk. The plaintiff alleges that the 4-litre bag of Québon 2% milk he purchased for $11.79 under the in-store pickup model exceeded the maximum retail price in Annex A for Region I, which was $8.13 in 2024. On his calculation, this represents paying approximately 45% more than the regulated maximum. For that transaction, there is no question of home delivery by a dairy entrepreneur, so the ordinary maximum retail price appears to apply, and the plaintiff has at least an arguable basis for claiming overcharging.

Home delivery, platform services and the “direct to home” exception

The legal landscape is more complex for the home-delivery transaction represented by invoice P-11. Here, the plaintiff ordered three 4-litre bags of milk and eggs from Costco for delivery to his home via Uber’s platform. The Uber defendants argue that, under article 3 of the Regulation, milk delivered directly to a consumer’s home is exempt from the maximum price cap, suggesting that the home-delivery model removes any constraint on the upper retail price. The court, at the authorization stage, declines to rule definitively on this interpretive issue. The Regulation and its price-setting scheme are overseen by the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec, an administrative tribunal created by the Loi sur la mise en marché des produits agricoles, alimentaires et de la pêche. The Régie’s role includes promoting orderly marketing of agricultural and food products, fostering harmonious relations between market participants, and protecting consumers and the public interest by, among other things, fixing retail milk prices through its decisions. The present Regulation is the product of several Régie decisions, notably decisions 7020, 10699 and 10786. When reviewing decision 10699, the Superior Court notes that the debates at that time focused on traditional “laitiers” — independent entrepreneurs who both sold and delivered milk directly to consumers’ homes. Industry participants such as Agropur and the Conseil des industriels laitiers du Québec had advocated maintaining a minimum price while abolishing the maximum price for home-delivered milk, on the theory that home delivery was a special service for which consumers should pay a premium. Against this historical backdrop, the judge highlights that today’s e-commerce environment features a proliferation of sales and delivery methods, making it harder to apply, without further evidence, the notion of someone who “sells milk and delivers it directly to the consumer’s home.” At authorization, the court concludes it cannot decide whether the Régie’s earlier decisions and the Regulation’s wording extend the home-delivery exception to modern platform-facilitated deliveries like Uber’s. Nor can it definitively exclude such an application. The plaintiff’s argument that Uber is not the kind of independent entrepreneur contemplated when the text was adopted is considered at least defensible, especially given the historical focus on traditional milkmen. As a result, the court finds that the low evidentiary threshold for authorization is met for this aspect of Group B’s claim.

Alleged false or misleading tax representations under the Consumer Protection Act

Beyond the bare over-collection of tax or price, the plaintiff advances a consumer-protection theory grounded in the LPC. Specifically, he relies on articles 12, 17, 219, 227.1, 232 and 272 LPC, with article 227.1 front and centre. That provision prohibits any person, by any means, from making a false or misleading representation about the existence, imposition, amount or rate of charges payable under a federal or provincial law. The invoice P-11 for the Costco delivery shows $2.58 in tax on a pre-tax grocery total of $35.42, along with a $4.99 service fee, but does not disclose clearly which items or charges form the tax base. Depending on whether one considers all items or only the dairy products, the effective tax rate in the invoice appears to be around 7.2% or 9%. The plaintiff argues that these figures are inconsistent with a scenario where basic groceries are correctly treated as zero-rated; and if different interpretations are advanced by the defendants to justify the charges, they cannot all be simultaneously accurate. At the authorization stage, the judge accepts that these alleged representations about tax existence, imputation and rates are defendable as false or misleading within the meaning of article 227.1 LPC and that there is a sufficient appearance of right to proceed to the merits.

Common issues and suitability of the class action vehicle

The court then turns to the four cumulative criteria for authorizing a class action under article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.). First, with respect to common issues, the plaintiff proposes a list of questions covering whether Uber charged or permitted charging excessive taxes on basic groceries and excessive prices on milk; whether it allowed third-party merchants to contravene tax and milk-price laws; whether the group members suffered damages; and what those damages and potential punitive damages might be. The judge confirms that, to satisfy article 575(1), it suffices that the claims share at least one important common question of law or fact whose determination will meaningfully influence the outcome for all members. Here, the central questions surrounding the legality of tax charges, the interpretation of the milk price Regulation (including the home-delivery exception), and Uber’s role in enabling or making misrepresentations satisfy this requirement. The court refines and supplements the list of common questions. It adds an explicit question on whether Uber has falsely represented, or allowed others to falsely represent, the existence, imputation, amount or rate of sales taxes on zero-rated products. It also adds interpretive questions tailored to the milk-pricing regime, such as whether Uber is an “entrepreneur indépendant” that sells and delivers directly to the home within the meaning of the Regulation, whether it permitted third-party retailers to bill above the regulated maximum price, and whether retailers using Uber’s services for home delivery remain subject to the maximum retail price for milk. These refinements are intended to ensure that the common issues capture both the statutory tax regime and the specific regulatory questions tied to the Régie’s price framework.

Group composition, adequacy of representation and judicial district

For the third criterion, article 575(3) C.p.c., the plaintiff must show that the composition of the group makes it difficult or impracticable to use individual mandates or joinder of actions. The plaintiff does not know the names and addresses of all affected consumers, but the nature of Uber’s operations suggests that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people may have made similar Uber or Uber Eats purchases in Quebec during the class period. The court notes that it would be unrealistic for the plaintiff to gather individual mandates from each such consumer and that separate individual actions, followed by attempts at joinder, would be impractical, costly, and inefficient for both litigants and the justice system. In these circumstances, the class action is considered the most appropriate procedural vehicle to avoid conflicting judgments on identical legal and factual issues and to allow consumers to vindicate relatively modest individual claims that might otherwise never be pursued. For the fourth criterion, article 575(4) C.p.c., the court considers whether the proposed representative is in a position to ensure adequate representation. The plaintiff is himself a member of the group and has expressed his willingness to devote the necessary time and effort and to act with diligence and loyalty. No conflict of interest has been identified, and the judge reiterates that the adequacy test at authorization is relatively easy to meet. Although the plaintiff did not testify at the hearing and was not examined out of court beforehand, the court is satisfied that he has the requisite personal interest and the capacity to act as class representative. With respect to venue, the plaintiff proposes the district of Montreal for the action, on the basis that Uber Canada has an establishment there, Uber Portier Canada has appointed an attorney in that district, many group members can reasonably be presumed to reside in or near Montreal, and plaintiff’s counsel has offices there. The plaintiff himself lives in the immediate Montréal area. The court agrees and confirms the judicial district of Montreal as appropriate for the class proceeding.

Authorized class definitions, common questions and relief sought

In its formal dispositive section, the Superior Court authorizes the action and grants Mr. Fortin-Simard representative status for both groups, with the class period starting on 22 July 2021 (three years before filing of the authorization application). It slightly rephrases the class definitions to read: Group A consists of all persons who, after 22 July 2021, in Quebec, made a transaction via the Uber or Uber Eats apps or the Uber Eats website and paid an excess amount corresponding to sales taxes on zero-rated products. Group B consists of all persons who, after that date, in Quebec, made such a transaction and paid more than the maximum lawful price for consumer milk. The court then sets out the list of common questions as modified, including the tax-representation issue under the LPC, tax overcharge on zero-rated groceries, regulatory non-compliance in milk pricing, Uber’s characterization under the Regulation, the application of the maximum retail price to home-delivered milk through Uber, the existence and quantum of damages, and the availability and amount of punitive damages. On the remedies side, the court characterizes the “conclusions recherchées” (prayers for relief) as broadly consistent with the alleged facts and clarifies them. For Group A, the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages equal to the taxes overpaid on each transaction, with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of the authorization application. For Group B, he seeks the amounts paid above the maximum legally permitted price for consumer milk, again with legal interest and the additional indemnity from the date of filing. Both streams of compensatory damages and associated interest are to be recovered on a collective basis. In addition, the plaintiff seeks $5 in punitive damages per transaction per group member, with legal interest and the additional indemnity from the date of judgment, to be recovered collectively. The court’s order also anticipates that group members will be bound by the final judgment (subject to any opt-outs), establishes a 30-day exclusion period following publication of court-approved notices, and reconvenes the parties to settle the form of notices and a dissemination plan.

Outcome and status of monetary relief

The judgment in Fortin-Simard c. Uber Canada inc. is an authorization decision, not a final determination on liability or damages. The Superior Court concludes that all four criteria in article 575 C.p.c. are met and therefore authorizes the class action, appoints Mr. Fortin-Simard as the representative for Groups A and B, approves the class definitions and common issues with certain modifications, and confirms that the action will proceed in the judicial district of Montreal. Uber’s opposition to authorization is therefore unsuccessful at this preliminary stage. However, the court does not adjudicate the merits of the alleged tax misapplication, regulatory milk-price violations or LPC breaches, and it does not award any quantified compensatory or punitive damages, nor any global costs award. The amounts claimed — reimbursement of overcharged taxes, reimbursement of milk prices paid beyond the regulatory maximum, and $5 punitive damages per transaction — remain potential remedies to be decided in a later merits judgment or through settlement. As a result, while the successful party in this decision is the plaintiff, Mr. Fortin-Simard, no specific total monetary award, damages figure or quantified costs have yet been granted or ordered in his or the class’s favour; the total amount in issue cannot presently be determined.