Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of “appropriate evidence” that defendants may file at the authorization stage of a Québec class action under article 574 C.C.P.
• Tension between allowing limited defence evidence and avoiding a “trial before the trial” on the merits of alleged misrepresentations about Amazon Prime’s two-day and next-day delivery in Québec.
• Admissibility of Amazon’s internal transactional data and sworn statements to show that alleged delivery delays were exceptional rather than systemic.
• Contest over the proper contracting entity for the Prime program and whether evidence on corporate structure can be used to deny a legal link with certain Amazon entities at authorization.
• Challenge to the probative value and completeness of Amazon’s affidavits on warehouse closures and logistics, given the absence of supporting documentation.
• Judicial discretion to partially grant the defendants’ motion, admitting only evidence that is neutral, documentary, or difficult to contest while excluding argumentative or incomplete material.

Background and proposed class action

The case arises from a proposed class action in the Québec Superior Court’s Class Actions Chamber brought by petitioner Jean Desnoyers against several Amazon entities in connection with the Amazon Prime subscription program in Québec. The petitioner seeks authorization to institute a class action on behalf of Québec consumers who subscribed to Prime and allegedly did not receive the fast delivery services that were promised as core subscription benefits. The action targets Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC, and Amazon.com.ca, ULC as defendants. The petitioner claims that these entities collectively marketed and administered Prime for Québec customers and continued to charge subscription fees despite significant changes in Amazon’s local logistics operations.

Alleged Prime delivery promises and consumer expectations

According to the petitioner, Prime is promoted on Amazon’s platform as offering free expedited delivery, specifically “Expédition Prime GRATUITE en deux jours au plus tard,” with some items also eligible for next-day delivery. These representations are said to have formed part of the contractual and marketing framework that induced Québec consumers to subscribe to Prime, whether on an annual basis at $99 or at a monthly rate of $9.99. The alleged core promise was that eligible items ordered by Prime members in Québec would reliably be delivered within one or two days, thus justifying the recurring subscription charges and differentiating Prime from ordinary delivery options.

Closure of Québec warehouses and alleged failure of performance

The petitioner alleges that Amazon fell into default of its obligations by failing to maintain the promised level of Prime delivery service following the closure of seven Amazon warehouses in Québec in January 2025. Despite these closures, Amazon is said to have continued charging Prime fees to Québec subscribers without informing them that the fast delivery service would not be available “comme avant” (as before). In the petitioner’s view, this combination of continuing subscription charges, ongoing promotional representations, and reduced delivery performance constitutes a breach of Amazon’s commitments, as well as misleading or false representations to consumers.

Statutory framework: consumer protection and competition law

The proposed class action is anchored in two principal statutory regimes. First, the petitioner invokes the Québec Consumer Protection Act (Loi sur la protection du consommateur), alleging that Amazon’s representations about Prime delivery, and its continuation of subscription billing despite reduced service, run afoul of consumer protection norms governing truthful advertising, fair contract performance, and non-deceptive business practices. Second, the claim relies on the federal Competition Act, asserting that Amazon’s conduct amounts to unlawful deceptive marketing or false representations in a competitive marketplace. The recourse seeks not only compensatory redress, but also punitive damages, reflecting the gravity the petitioner ascribes to the alleged misrepresentations and systemic nature of the practice.

Relief sought by the petitioner

On the merits, the recourse aims for multiple forms of monetary and corrective relief for the proposed class. The petitioner asks for compensation corresponding to the value of the Prime delivery service that was allegedly not provided, a reduction in members’ obligations for subscription fees charged for non-delivered or degraded services, and punitive damages to sanction and deter alleged contraventions of the Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act. The authorization application thus positions the case as both compensatory and punitive, seeking wide-ranging financial consequences for what is described as misleading and unfair treatment of Québec Prime subscribers.

Legal framework for “appropriate evidence” at authorization

The judgment in question does not decide the merits of these claims; instead, it addresses a procedural motion by the defendants to file “preuve appropriée” (appropriate evidence) at the authorization stage under article 574 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 574 allows the court, at the authorization stage of a class action, to permit the presentation of limited evidence where appropriate. The court reviews the jurisprudence, emphasizing that any defence evidence admitted at this preliminary stage must be strictly circumscribed: it must be necessary, even indispensable, to the analysis of the authorization criteria, and cannot convert authorization into a full trial on the merits. The court reiterates that appropriate evidence may be allowed if it directly demonstrates that essential allegations in the authorization application are inherently improbable, false, or inaccurate, or that the proposed class action is doomed to fail. Conversely, evidence that would require contested fact-finding, weighing of credibility, or a mini-trial on causation or damages is to be excluded.

Limits on evidentiary disputes at the preliminary stage

Drawing on appellate guidance, including Durand c. Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, the court stresses that the petitioner’s burden at authorization is primarily logical or demonstrative rather than a full evidentiary burden. The court’s role is to assume the truth of the petitioner’s essential factual allegations, not to resolve conflicts of evidence between the parties. Defence evidence that could be contested, or that invites the judge to prefer the defendants’ version of events over the petitioner’s, risks amounting to “un procès avant le procès” (a trial before the trial) and is therefore inappropriate at the authorization phase. The judge also underlines that discretion to admit evidence must be exercised cautiously and proportionately, with a constant eye on avoiding the escalation of authorization into a de facto merits hearing.

Amazon’s proposed evidence and objectives

The defendants sought to introduce several sets of evidence designed to undermine the petitioner’s theory of systemic default and misrepresentation. First, they proposed an affidavit from Jasmin Begagic, Regional Operations Director at Amazon Canada Services de commande, detailing the timing and nature of the closures of Amazon’s Québec logistics facilities, and suggesting that closures were progressive and not fully complete at the time the petitioner alleges delivery issues. Second, they proffered an affidavit from paralegal Rebecca Hartley, supported by extensive transactional records (exhibits AMZ-2 and AMZ-4 to AMZ-54), showing the petitioner’s own order history, promised delivery times, and actual delivery dates. This data purportedly showed that of 51 Prime orders placed after 22 January 2025 (aside from one instance identified in the petitioner’s pleadings), 27 were delivered on time, 19 were delivered early, and only 5 experienced delays. The defence intended to use this to argue that any delivery failures were exceptional rather than systemic.

Evidence on contracting entities and Prime program structure

The Hartley affidavit also sought to clarify the contractual framework for Prime in Canada. Referring to the Amazon Prime Conditions (exhibit AMZ-1) and other terms of use, Hartley asserted that the Prime program in Canada is offered by Amazon.com.ca ULC, not by Amazon.com, Inc. or Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC, and that the website and mobile application used by customers are operated exclusively by Amazon.com.ca ULC. This line of evidence was meant to narrow the defendants properly implicated in the contractual relationship and potentially to exclude two of the three named entities from the litigation. Additionally, an affidavit from Michelle Emaelaf, head of marketing and the Prime team at Amazon.com.ca ULC, offered broader explanations of the relationships among the defendant entities and their respective spheres of activity, alongside commentary on media articles cited by the petitioner and on the scope and availability of Prime-eligible items in Québec during the relevant period.

Media coverage, Prime availability, and challenged narratives

In her affidavit, Emaelaf discussed press articles relied on by the petitioner and attempted to discount their significance by noting that Prime delivery availability varies by delivery address and product, and by arguing that the number of items highlighted in those articles was infinitesimal compared to the total number of products on Amazon.ca that were eligible for one- or two-day Prime delivery during the week of 16–22 February 2025. However, much of this evidence was not anchored in documentary exhibits and did not specify actual delivery performance for the purportedly available items. The court regarded these assertions as inviting an evaluative exercise regarding the probative value of competing narratives and the credibility of media and petitioner evidence, which is not the function of the authorization stage.

Court’s treatment of the Begagic affidavit on warehouse closures

With respect to the Begagic affidavit, the court notes that it describes the dates of closure of various warehouses and each facility’s operational role. The intended use of this affidavit is to rebut the petitioner’s inference that warehouse closures caused the alleged delivery delays by showing that operations continued, and closures were staged, during the period in question. The court observes that in a full trial, such testimony would normally be supported by detailed documentation on closure dates, logistics flows, and impacts on the supply and delivery chain. Standing alone, the affidavit appears incomplete and would not be taken as established fact at authorization. Nevertheless, the petitioner did not take a clear position opposing its production. By way of prudence, and with explicit reservations, the court allows the filing of this affidavit as appropriate evidence, while emphasizing that its production does not alter the court’s role or lead to treating the statements as proven facts at the authorization stage.

Court’s treatment of the Hartley affidavit and transactional records

The Hartley affidavit, supported by extensive transactional documentation, is treated differently. The court notes that these records—showing the petitioner’s orders, shipment dates, and delivery dates—are documentary, specific, and appear difficult to contest at this juncture. They are considered necessary for the defendants to advance their argument that non-compliant delivery times in the petitioner’s case were isolated exceptions rather than evidence of a systemic failure of Prime delivery in Québec. The affidavit also explains the meaning of the delivery timeframes as presented on Amazon’s website (exhibit AMZ-3), which the court accepts as useful to accurately define the defendants’ public representations about delivery promises. The court therefore authorizes production of the Hartley affidavit and exhibits AMZ-1 through AMZ-54, while excluding the purely argumentative content of paragraphs 3 to 5 of that affidavit. It also accepts, as neutral and complementary, the contractual materials (AMZ-1) establishing that Amazon.com.ca ULC is the entity offering the Prime program in Canada.

Rejection of broad corporate-structure assertions and media rebuttal

By contrast, the court finds that the corporate-structure explanations in Emaelaf’s affidavit are not supported by documentation and would not suffice at trial to disprove the existence of a legal relationship between the petitioner and the two non-Prime entities. To reject authorization against those entities solely on the basis of seven broad paragraphs asserting their non-involvement would be inappropriate, given the preliminary nature of the stage. The court therefore refuses to admit that portion of the affidavit as appropriate evidence. Similarly, Emaelaf’s attempt to counter the media articles by suggesting limited impact and variable availability, as well as by claiming that a vast number of items remained Prime-eligible during the period, is deemed problematic: the assertions are unverified, omit effective delivery times, and do not clearly establish the falsity of the petitioner’s allegations. They would require the court to weigh and compare evidence and to engage in an appreciation of sufficiency and reliability—steps that belong at trial, not at authorization. On that basis, the court declines to admit those sections of her affidavit.

Policy changes and evidence relevant to group definition

The Emaelaf affidavit also introduces evidence that the Amazon Prime Conditions were modified on 12 September 2025, with exhibit AMZ-55 filed to show the updated terms. While the case is still at the authorization phase, the court recognizes that the fact and timing of this policy change could later prove relevant to defining the class or temporal boundaries of the group, for example by distinguishing between subscribers affected before and after a particular contractual amendment. The court therefore allows paragraph 16 of the Emaelaf affidavit and exhibit AMZ-55 to be filed as appropriate evidence, limited to the policy-change context. At this stage, however, the judgment does not undertake a detailed clause-by-clause analysis of the Prime Conditions or specify which individual clauses are alleged to be breached; it simply acknowledges the existence and evolution of the contractual framework governing Prime in Canada.

Outcome of the motion and absence of monetary orders

In the result, the Superior Court grants the defendants’ motion to file appropriate evidence only in part. It authorizes the production of the Begagic affidavit on warehouse closures, the bulk of the Hartley affidavit with its supporting exhibits (including transactional records and key contractual documents), and paragraph 16 of the Emaelaf affidavit with exhibit AMZ-55, while refusing other portions that are unsupported, argumentative, or would require premature weighing of conflicting evidence. The court explicitly orders that this partial authorization does not alter its duty at the authorization stage and will not open the door to a full merits debate. Recognizing the mixed success of the parties, the court disposes of the motion without costs, stating that there are no judicial fees awarded to either side and making no determination of damages or financial recovery at this stage; accordingly, there is no successful party in the substantive sense and no total monetary award can yet be determined.