Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Court oversight of a class action “reliquat” (unused balance) under arts. 596–597 C.p.c. and when further distribution to members must be preferred over cy-près donations.
• Adequacy of prior notice and reminder emails to settlement class members before expiry of settlement credits and the evidentiary record showing how Turo implemented the settlement.
• Legality and fairness of converting unused in-kind settlement credits into direct cash payments, including the structure of a redistribution plan administered by a third-party administrator.
• Allocation of administration costs and professional fees (Concilia and class counsel) so that they do not erode class members’ recovery and do not create new obligations for the defendant.
• Privacy-law compliance in compelling Turo to disclose names and email addresses of remaining class members to the administrator, with strict limits on use and confidentiality.
• Final discharge of Turo’s obligations under the 2021–2022 settlement once it pays the remaining balance into trust, and the treatment of any new residual amount via the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives and charitable donations.

Background and original settlement

This class action arises from consumer complaints against Turo Inc., an online platform that facilitates peer-to-peer vehicle sharing for users in Québec. The plaintiff, Shay Abicidan, acted as representative plaintiff for a group of Turo users (the “Settlement Class Members”) who qualified for compensation under a settlement agreement negotiated in 2021 and approved by the Superior Court on 12 April 2022. The settlement, referred to as the “Entente de règlement,” provided that eligible class members would receive compensation not as cash but as “crédits de règlement” worth $16.50 each, usable on the Turo platform and valid for 36 months. The Entente was structured with a guaranteed value of $760,688, meaning that any portion of settlement credits not used by the end of the validity period would not revert to Turo but would be directed to the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives and then to designated charitable organizations. This mechanism anticipated the possibility that not all class members would claim or use their credits and ensured that the settlement’s total economic value would still be realized for public or class-related benefit.

Implementation of the settlement and notice to class members

Following court approval, Turo was responsible for operationalizing the settlement, which required communicating with and crediting the accounts of tens of thousands of users. In July 2022, Turo issued approval notices by email to approximately 33,300 members of the settlement group, with 32,707 valid email addresses ultimately confirmed. On 17 July 2022, the $16.50 settlement credits were deposited into the eligible accounts of each class member on the platform. To reduce the risk that credits would expire unused, Turo later sent several reminder emails to class members who had not yet used their credits, in April 2023, April 2024 and April 2025. These steps were important evidentiary elements: they showed the Court that class members had been properly informed of their rights and that reasonable efforts were made to encourage use of the credits before expiry.

Expiry of credits and the emergence of a large residual balance

Despite those steps, by 2 July 2025 — the expiry date of the settlement credits — a significant number of members still had not used their credit. On that date, 25,469 members had unused credits, and those credits were removed from their accounts according to the settlement terms. Only 7,238 members had used their credits before expiration. The unused credits assigned to the 25,469 members represented a total value of $420,238.50 (25,469 × $16.50). This amount became the “reliquat” or remaining balance of the settlement. Under the Entente, that reliquat was ultimately destined for the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives and then charity. However, Québec’s Code of Civil Procedure obliges courts to consider whether further direct distribution to class members is practicable before funds are assigned to third parties.

Legal framework governing redistribution of the reliquat

The redistribution application was brought in 2026 and framed expressly under articles 596 and 597 C.p.c., as interpreted by the Québec Court of Appeal. These provisions govern how a court should deal with a collective recovery and any remaining amount after an initial liquidation or distribution. The case law emphasizes that a court must be satisfied that individual liquidation or further distribution to members is “impracticable, inappropriate or too onerous” before authorizing allocation of a balance to third parties such as public funds or charities. The Court of Appeal has underlined that this threshold applies not only at the initial distribution stage but also to any reliquat that emerges after a first distribution. In this case, the Superior Court had to ask whether, in light of modern payment methods and the data available, a second round of distribution to the remaining class members was feasible and in their best interests.

The proposed redistribution plan and role of the administrator

To address the sizeable $420,238.50 reliquat, the parties — the plaintiff, Turo, and the Fonds d’aide — jointly sought the Court’s approval of a Redistribution Plan. Services Concilia Inc. agreed to act as Settlement Administrator for this second-stage distribution. Under the plan, Concilia would first send a tailored email to each of the 25,469 remaining class members, explaining why they were receiving an Interac e-transfer and providing the password necessary to deposit the funds. Concilia would then issue an Interac e-transfer of $16.50 to the email address of each remaining member, effectively converting the previously unused in-kind platform credit into a direct cash payment. The plan thereby preserved the original quantum of individual compensation while changing the mode of delivery from platform credit to e-transfer. The Court also approved the structure for administration expenses. Concilia’s fees would be paid entirely from the $420,238.50 balance, with no additional payment required from Turo. To ensure that administration costs could not erode the full amount available for the class, class counsel undertook to cover any overage if Concilia’s actual fees exceeded the residual balance. The Court accepted this arrangement as a way to maximize the net benefit reaching class members.

Privacy protections and data-sharing obligations

Because the redistribution depended on targeted electronic payments to identifiable individuals, the Court had to reconcile settlement administration with privacy law requirements. The judgment orders Turo to disclose, within 20 days, the names and email addresses of the 25,469 remaining class members to Concilia, but strictly for the purposes of executing the Redistribution Plan. Concilia is ordered to maintain the confidentiality of this information and barred from sharing or using it for any other purpose. The Court expressly declares that the judgment constitutes a lawful order compelling production of personal information within the meaning of applicable privacy legislation and that it satisfies applicable privacy-law requirements. These findings provide an important procedural and evidentiary safeguard, justifying the transfer of personal data from Turo to the administrator and insulating both from later privacy challenges, so long as they adhere to the narrow purpose and confidentiality conditions set out in the judgment.

Court supervision, reporting duties and treatment of any new residual amount

The judgment also reinforces the supervisory role of the Court over collective recoveries and their administration. Concilia is ordered to issue the Interac e-transfers within 40 days of the judgment. Within 30 days after sending those transfers, Concilia must file a detailed report to the Court explaining how many e-transfers were successful, the aggregate value successfully paid to class members, the number and value of unsuccessful transfers and a full accounting of how the $420,238.50 was used, including its own fees. The parties must then come back to court once the plan has been carried out to seek a closing judgment. The judgment also anticipates that some e-transfers may not be accepted or may fail despite reasonable efforts. If a further balance still remains after e-transfers and fees, this new reliquat will be paid to the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives in accordance with the regulation governing its percentage, and thereafter donated to the charitable organizations agreed by the parties in the Redistribution Plan. This preserves the original settlement design while giving priority, as required by the Code, to direct payments to class members when practicable.

Outcome and successful party

In its operative part, the Court grants the plaintiff’s application to redistribute the remaining settlement amount and approves the Redistribution Plan. Services Concilia Inc. is appointed Settlement Administrator and ordered to hold the funds in trust for beneficiaries and to carry out the e-transfer distribution. Turo is ordered to pay $420,238.50 — the entire remaining balance of the settlement — to Concilia. Subject to that payment, the Court declares that Turo has fully satisfied all of its obligations under the 2021 settlement agreement and the 2022 approval judgment. The Court makes no order as to costs, and class counsel receive no additional fees for the redistribution work, beyond their earlier approved fees. Overall, the successful party is the settlement class represented by Mr. Abicidan, which secures a court-supervised cash redistribution of the $420,238.50 reliquat to 25,469 remaining class members, while Turo obtains final closure once it pays that amount into trust.