Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Timeliness of service of the authorization application under article 107(3) C.p.c. in the context of a proposed class action
• Impact of international service requirements under the Hague Service Convention on the three-month service deadline
• Assessment of whether the plaintiffs acted diligently in mandating a specialized firm to handle translation and U.S. service of the proceedings
• Consideration of prejudice to the foreign defendants where a related Canadian affiliate has already been duly served
• Application of prior case law confirming that article 107(3) C.p.c. applies to international notification, while allowing relief where serious and reasonable grounds exist
• Determination that no party should bear costs for this procedural extension, with the motion granted without legal costs and no damages awarded

Background and facts of the case

Elaine Emerson and Irene Ann Baty commenced proceedings in the Superior Court of Québec, Class Actions Chamber, seeking authorization to institute a class action against Pfizer Inc. (a U.S. entity referred to as Pfizer US), Pfizer Canada ULC / Pfizer Canada SRI (Pfizer Canada), and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC (Pharmacia), which are all part of the same corporate group. Their filing, dated 29 October 2024, was a Demande pour obtenir l’autorisation de déposer une action collective, the usual first step in Québec class action practice. The underlying merits of the proposed class action are not addressed in this judgment; instead, the Court is seized only of a procedural issue relating to service of the authorization application.

Pfizer Canada, a Canadian entity with a presence in Québec, was validly notified of the authorization application in accordance with the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile, C.p.c.). By contrast, Pfizer US and Pharmacia are U.S. corporations with no domicile or residence in Québec, making their notification subject to international rules on service. Because Canada and the United States are both signatories to the Convention de La Haye relative à la signification et la notification à l’étranger des actes judiciaires et extrajudiciaires en matière civile ou commerciale (the Hague Service Convention), service on these U.S. defendants had to proceed through that international mechanism, which often introduces additional delay.

Recognizing the need to comply with the Hague Service Convention, the plaintiffs acted shortly after filing. On 5 November 2024, they mandated APS International, a specialized firm, to manage both the English translation of the authorization application and the notification of that proceeding to Pfizer US and Pharmacia in the United States. Despite these efforts, APS International had not completed its mandate within the timeframe contemplated by the domestic procedural rules, which triggered the present request for an extension of the service deadline.

Procedural framework and legal context

The Court’s analysis centers on article 107 C.p.c., which governs the filing and notification of originating applications in Québec civil procedure. The rule requires that an originating application be filed at the court office before it is notified to the other parties, and once notification is effected, proof of that notification must also be filed. Article 107(3) C.p.c. provides that if a proceeding is not notified within three months of filing, it is deemed to be abandoned or “périmée.”

The judge emphasizes that this three-month period is not a delay of strict rigor. Under article 84 C.p.c. and related case law, a party can be relieved from the consequences of non-compliance with this time limit by demonstrating serious and reasonable grounds for failing to act within the prescribed period. Prior decisions, including Surin c. Apple inc., CSX Transportation Inc. c. Price, and Letarte c. Bayer inc., have confirmed that the same three-month deadline applies even when service must be carried out abroad, such as through the Hague Service Convention. At the same time, those decisions recognize that the need to comply with international service requirements can itself constitute a relevant factor when deciding whether to grant relief from default.

The Court notes that no litigant should lose substantive rights merely because international conventions impose procedural steps that inherently cause delays exceeding Québec’s usual timelines. Earlier case law, including Hazan c. Micron Technology Inc. and Noel c. Otto Fuchs Beteiligungen KG, supports the view that international service-related delays can justify granting extensions for filing proof of notification. This judgment builds on that line of authority, applying it to the class action context where the plaintiffs are seeking authorization to proceed on behalf of a putative class.

Assessment of diligence and prejudice

Turning to the specific facts, the Court finds that the plaintiffs acted diligently. Within days of filing the authorization application, they retained a specialized international service firm to translate the documents and effect service in the United States under the Hague Convention framework. The delays were therefore not attributable to any inaction or neglect by the plaintiffs but to the time required for translation and compliance with the international procedure.

The judge also considers whether any party will suffer prejudice if an extension is granted. Pfizer Canada, which is part of the same corporate group as Pfizer US and Pharmacia, has already been notified of the authorization application. This mitigates any risk that the foreign defendants would be taken by surprise or seriously disadvantaged by a modest extension of time. The Court concludes that no one will suffer prejudice if the plaintiffs are allowed additional time to complete international service and file proof of that notification.

Ruling on the request for extension

In light of the applicable legal principles, the plaintiffs’ demonstrated diligence, the procedural demands of the Hague Service Convention, and the absence of prejudice to the defendants, the Court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to extend the deadline for service of their authorization application. The judgment expressly “welcomes” or allows the plaintiffs’ request, formally extending the time limit for serving the Demande pour obtenir l’autorisation d’exercer une action collective and for obtaining representative status by 180 days from the date of the judgment. This preserves the pending authorization application and prevents it from being deemed abandoned under article 107(3) C.p.c.

The Court orders that this outcome be “sans frais de justice,” meaning no party is awarded costs in relation to this procedural motion. The decision does not address the underlying merits of the proposed class action and does not award any damages or other monetary relief. The successful party in this decision is the plaintiffs, Emerson and Baty, whose request for an extension is fully granted. However, there is no monetary award, damages, or quantified costs ordered in their favor, and the total amount granted cannot be stated as any sum, since the judgment is explicitly without legal costs and deals solely with a time-extension issue at the authorization stage.