Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and legality of insurers’ unilateral withdrawal of Ajusto telematics rebates promised as “locked in” for as long as insureds maintained auto coverage.
• Alleged misleading or false representations under Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act (LPC) and the federal Competition Act regarding the permanence and financial advantage of the Ajusto discount.
• Whether contractual and pre-contractual representations created a binding obligation to maintain the rebate, engaging fault, good faith, and consent under the Civil Code of Québec.
• Sufficiency of evidence at the authorization stage to show an arguable loss (higher premiums or loss of a promised benefit) and a causal link to the challenged representations.
• Satisfaction of article 575 C.p.c. criteria: common issues, appearance of right, suitability of a class proceeding, and adequacy of the proposed representative.
• Definition of the Quebec and Ontario classes, including exclusion of members whose rebates were replaced by an equivalent discount under the new Ajusto program.

Facts of the case
Carlo Mattiuzzi has held an automobile insurance policy with La Personnelle since 2015. In 2019, at renewal, a representative suggested that he and his spouse enroll in the Ajusto telematics program to obtain a premium discount by installing a mobile app that would record their driving for 100 days and 1,000 kilometres. Promotional material on La Personnelle’s website described how a driving “score” would be calculated and could translate into a discount. It emphasized that Ajusto would not result in any penalty or premium increase, and that any discount would be applied after the evaluation period and would remain available “tant et aussi longtemps que vous conserverez votre assurance auto avec nous” / “locked in for as long as you have car insurance with us.” These representations were said to be consistent with what Mattiuzzi was told verbally and saw on the insurer’s app in 2019. Relying on these assurances, he enrolled in Ajusto and accepted the data-collection terms. After the evaluation period between March and June 2019, he achieved the maximum 25% discount. La Personnelle confirmed this in writing, stating “You get this discount every time you renew” without any asterisk or cross-reference to limiting conditions. In December 2024, La Personnelle emailed him to announce changes: the existing version of Ajusto would be discontinued, replaced with a new continuous-monitoring Ajusto program, and his discount would no longer apply after the expiry date of his current policy. The stated rationale was technological improvement and aligning premiums with ongoing driving habits. When Mattiuzzi phoned to object, he was routed among different representatives and told his file was under review. His January 2025 renewal showed a premium increase of about 38%, with a notice explaining that the former Ajusto version was being shut down, its rebate removed, and that participation in the new continuous program was required to benefit from a personalized premium. Mattiuzzi continued to contest the change and paid subsequent premiums “under protest.” He alleges that Desjardins Assurances générales owns and controls the Ajusto program and implemented the same changes in the same way across its brands, even though his direct contract was with La Personnelle.

Policy terms and representations
The Ajusto program operated as a usage-based discount attached to automobile insurance policies issued by La Personnelle and Desjardins. Marketing materials emphasized that the discount, once earned, would be applied at renewal and remain in effect as long as the insured kept their auto policy with the insurer, subject to a 100-day/1,000-kilometre initial evaluation period. The website included a generic note that conditions, exclusions, and limitations could apply, and the app enrollment flow required users to confirm they had read and accepted the terms of use. The insurers’ evidence at authorization highlighted these notes and the click-through acceptance, and argued that the terms allowed for program changes. The plaintiff, however, focuses on the clear “locked in” / “tant et aussi longtemps” promises and the written confirmation of a recurring discount “every time you renew,” with no visible qualification. He says these representations created a binding expectation that the 25% rebate would be maintained at each renewal for as long as he remained insured with La Personnelle, and that requiring continuous telematics monitoring under a new program, with no guarantee of an equivalent discount, amounts to an impermissible change of the deal.

Legal framework and causes of action
The case sits at the intersection of several practice areas. Contractually, Mattiuzzi alleges a fault under article 1458 C.c.Q., supported by duties of good faith and honesty (articles 6, 7, 1375 C.c.Q.), and invokes vice of consent and misrepresentation (articles 1401, 1407 C.c.Q.). He claims the insurers unilaterally altered the substance of their obligations, withdrawing a promised permanent rebate and conditioning any future discount on joining a materially different continuous-monitoring program. From a consumer-protection standpoint, he relies on the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC), particularly articles 216, 218, 219, 220(b) and 224(c), arguing that the “locked-in” messaging and related statements were false or misleading practices about the existence and duration of an economic advantage and the price actually payable. Under article 272 LPC, he seeks injunctive relief (specific performance) to force maintenance of the rebate, and punitive damages for what he characterizes as bad-faith conduct and a deliberate business strategy: offering an attractive, seemingly permanent discount to draw in customers and later changing the program to their detriment. For Ontario members, and as a federal overlay, he invokes sections 36 and 52 of the Competition Act, alleging false or misleading representations to the public on a material point and seeking compensation for any resulting financial loss. The plaintiff’s primary remedy is an injunction ordering the insurers to keep applying the original Ajusto discounts at each renewal; subsidiarily, he seeks compensatory damages measured as the difference between what members actually paid and what they would have paid had the 2019-type rebate been maintained, plus punitive damages.

Court’s analysis on authorization criteria
Justice Hivon’s decision is confined to the authorization (certification) stage under article 575 of the Code de procédure civile. The Court reiterates that this is a procedural filtering step: the judge does not decide the merits but assesses whether there is a “cause défendable” (defendable case) and whether a class action is appropriate. On contractual liability, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s allegations and supporting documents show arguable representations about future obligations—namely a continuing rebate for as long as coverage is maintained—and that the legal effect of those promises, in light of statutory rules allowing insurers to change premiums at renewal, is a matter for trial. The insurers’ reliance on statutory powers to adjust premiums and on general reservation clauses in the program terms does not defeat the claim at this preliminary stage. On damages, the Court holds it is enough that there is a plausible possibility that the plaintiff and class members suffered financial harm (higher premiums and loss of a promised benefit) from the program changes; the precise quantification and any mitigation issues are for the merits. Under the LPC, the Court applies the Supreme Court’s framework from Richard v. Time, focusing on the “impression générale” created for the ordinary, credulous consumer. It finds an arguable case that the “locked in” / “tant et aussi longtemps” wording, combined with the written confirmation of a recurring discount, could reasonably lead consumers to believe the rebate was permanent as long as they stayed insured, and that later withdrawal of the discount and imposition of a new, more onerous program may be inconsistent with that impression. The presence of generic notes about conditions, exclusions, and limitations is treated as a merits question, not something that negates the claim at the filter stage. The Court also finds an arguable basis for the Competition Act claims for both Quebec and Ontario members, given the same promotional representations and alleged economic loss. On punitive damages, the allegations of a deliberate business plan and bad faith suffice to clear the low threshold for authorization. Regarding the article 575 criteria, the Court identifies common questions—including whether the unilateral withdrawal of the Ajusto rebate violates the LPC, the Civil Code, or the Competition Act; whether an injunction should issue; and whether class members are entitled to compensatory and/or punitive damages—and concludes these issues will advance the litigation for all members in a non-trivial way. The composition requirement is met given hundreds of potential members in Quebec and Ontario and the impracticality of joinder or mandates. On representation, the Court applies a liberal, “minimalist” standard: Mattiuzzi has a live, arguable claim and no apparent conflict with other members, so he is an adequate representative. It modestly adjusts the proposed class definition to exclude individuals who in fact obtained an equivalent rebate under the new Ajusto program, to ensure the class is rationally delimited and objectively identifiable.

Outcome and next steps
The Superior Court grants the Application to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action, authorizes a class proceeding in injunction and in compensatory and punitive damages, and appoints Carlo Mattiuzzi as representative plaintiff for defined Quebec and Ontario classes. It formally identifies the common issues and the conclusions sought, including an order compelling La Personnelle, Desjardins and related entities to honour the original Ajusto rebates on future renewals, or alternatively to pay compensatory and punitive damages to class members, with collective recovery and appropriate liquidation mechanisms. Administrative details about opt-out periods, the content and publication of notices, and the allocation and treatment of publication costs are deferred to a later stage, and the Court confirms the action will proceed in the judicial district of Longueuil. In this authorization judgment, the successful party is the plaintiff, Carlo Mattiuzzi, whose application is allowed and whose class action is authorized to proceed; however, no monetary award, costs, or quantified damages are yet granted or fixed in his favour, and the total amount—if any—can only be determined after the case is heard on the merits.