Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Divergence between the currency symbol “$” on Canadian rental websites and the actual billing in USD raises issues of misleading or incomplete price disclosure to Canadian consumers.
• Authorization turns on whether the alleged facts show a defendable cause of action under Québec’s Consumer Protection Act (L.p.c.) and the federal Competition Act, but not under the Civil Code of Québec at this stage.
• Evidentiary use of website screenshots, sworn statements from corporate representatives, and consumer emails supports a prima facie pattern of confusion about currency and potential overcharging.
• Corporate connections between Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada and Hertz Canada Limited, including website ownership and the “Hertz Rental Record,” underpin the argument for solidary liability.
• Definition of the class is narrowed to a national group renting or reserving online between 11 April 2023 and 27 March 2024 and being charged in non-CAD currency, reflecting changes in how currency was displayed on the sites.
• The presence of arbitration clauses and the limits imposed by article 11.1 L.p.c. are flagged, but their applicability to non-consumer members is left for the merits and not resolved at the authorization stage.

Background and parties

Bitton Benjamin, a Québec resident, applied to bring a proposed class action in the Québec Superior Court (Class Actions Chamber) against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada and Hertz Canada Limited. He alleged that Canadian consumers using the defendants’ Canadian websites and applications to rent vehicles were misled about the currency in which their rentals would ultimately be charged and were therefore overcharged when billed in foreign currency—primarily US dollars rather than Canadian dollars. The case arises in the context of online vehicle reservations made from Canada for rentals in the United States and other foreign countries, using websites such as thriftycanada.ca and dollarcanada.ca. Hertz’s own Canadian site, hertz.ca, is also relevant because it showed a different, clearer treatment of currency display.

The judgment at issue is an authorization decision: the court is not deciding liability on the merits but whether the proposed class action should be allowed to proceed on behalf of a defined class and under which legal theories. The defendants challenged both the existence of any defendable cause of action and several key aspects of the proposed group description, including geography, time period, and inclusion of Hertz as a defendant.

Facts of the representative plaintiff’s reservation

On 19 November 2023, Bitton visited the Canadian website thriftycanada.ca from Montréal. He reserved a rental car for his vacation, to be picked up at Fort Lauderdale Airport on 24 December 2023 and returned on 9 January 2024, at a displayed total price of 1,400.93 $. The site used the “$” symbol without any “USD” or “US” notation, and the plaintiff alleges he reasonably believed that the amount was in Canadian dollars. No payment was taken at the time of the online reservation, as the model was “pay on pickup.”

When he collected the vehicle in Florida on 24 December 2023, Bitton paid at the counter with his credit card and received a Thrifty rental contract confirming an estimated total rental charge of 1,371.05 $. A few days later, when checking his credit card account, he realized that the rental had been processed in US dollars, not Canadian dollars. Due to the exchange rate, his credit card was ultimately charged 1,924.76 CAD, which is 523.82 CAD more than the 1,400.93 he believed he had agreed to pay. He complained to Thrifty, and then received a customer-service email from Hertz, stating that because the vehicle was picked up in the United States, the applicable currency should be US dollars. He claims reliance on the website display, alleges he was misled as to currency, and seeks recovery of the 523.82 CAD difference plus punitive damages of 100 CAD.

Website changes and the broader pattern alleged

Historically, until 11 April 2023, the defendants’ Canadian websites allegedly showed not only the “$” sign but also alpha codes such as “CAD” and “USD,” and for European locations “GBP” and “EUR,” clearly identifying the applicable currency. At the beginning of April 2023, the Canadian sites were rebuilt and relaunched. From 11 April 2023 onward, for rentals to be picked up in the United States and paid on site, the websites used the “$” symbol alone to indicate prices, while maintaining the “CAD” code when prices were in Canadian dollars. At the same time, the payment structure shifted such that customers could reserve online but would only pay at pickup rather than at the reservation stage.

According to the court’s summary of the evidence, this meant that for U.S. rentals booked through thriftycanada.ca and dollarcanada.ca between 11 April 2023 and 27 March 2024, the price was displayed only as “$” without specifying USD or showing an equivalent CAD amount, while the actual charge at pickup was made in USD. For rentals in some other foreign countries (for example, France or the United Kingdom), the same sites displayed only the local currency symbol (€, £), without disclosing the equivalent in Canadian dollars at the booking stage. In contrast, the hertz.ca site, for the same rentals, displayed pricing more transparently in both CAD and the relevant foreign currency, a difference the plaintiff uses to argue that Dollar Thrifty’s Canadian sites could easily have avoided confusion but did not.

On 27 March 2024, the Canadian sites were again modified, now adding “USD” or “US$” explicitly for U.S. rentals. The judge notes that this change appeared to be a reaction to the present proceedings and had the effect of clarifying the American currency and, for some configurations, also affecting whether immediate payment was possible at reservation.

Alleged legal violations and causes of action

The plaintiff alleges a multi-layered legal basis for the class action. Under the Québec Consumer Protection Act (Loi sur la protection du consommateur, L.p.c.), he relies on provisions that (i) require disclosure of the currency where it is not Canadian (art. 54.4(h) L.p.c. on distance contracts), (ii) prohibit charging a higher price than advertised (arts. 215 and 224 L.p.c.), and (iii) prohibit false or misleading representations or failure to disclose an important fact (arts. 216, 218, 219 and 228 L.p.c.). He also invokes article 272 L.p.c., which provides consumers with a suite of civil remedies and establishes an absolute presumption of prejudice once a violation of an obligation imposed by the Act is proven; punitive damages may be awarded even if compensatory damages are not ultimately granted, depending on the trader’s overall conduct.

He further invokes the federal Competition Act (Loi sur la concurrence, L.c.), particularly section 52 (criminal misleading advertising) and section 36, which allows a civil claim for loss or damage resulting from conduct contrary to Part VI of that Act. His theory is that representing prices on Canadian websites with “$” in circumstances where the charge will in fact be in USD (or another foreign currency) constitutes a false or misleading indication to the public on a material point.

The plaintiff also cites numerous articles of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.) dealing with error, dol (fraud), lesion, contractual obligations, and jurisdiction. He argues, in essence, that his consent was not free and informed because he was mistaken as to a fundamental element of the contract—namely, the currency, which directly determines the price. He also relies on the private-international-law provision (art. 3148 C.c.Q.) to justify the Québec court’s jurisdiction over a proposed national class, given that the reservation was made online from Québec through Canadian-facing sites.

Finally, the plaintiff pleads for injunctive relief to prohibit the defendants from continuing to display prices in a way that misleads Canadians about the currency in which they will be charged, and he seeks solidary liability of Dollar Thrifty and Hertz on the basis of their corporate relationship, joint operation of websites, and Hertz’s involvement in the rental documentation and customer service.

Evidentiary elements at the authorization stage

At the authorization stage, Québec law requires only that the plaintiff demonstrate that the facts alleged “appear to justify the conclusions” sought; the court does not hold a full trial or weigh conflicting evidence. The decision draws on sworn statements of corporate representatives of Hertz Europe and Dollar Thrifty/Hertz Canada, including their cross-examinations, as well as documentary exhibits such as contract copies, rental receipts, screenshots of website displays for various scenarios (cars to be picked up in Canada, the U.S., France, the U.K.), and email exchanges between consumers and counsel.

One contested exhibit (P-29), a list of emails from would-be class members who contacted the plaintiff’s lawyers to express interest and describe experiences, was challenged by the defendants as late and irrelevant. The court admits it as evidence for the limited purpose of illustrating apparent confusion among some consumers about the currency and to support the existence of a broader issue across Canada, while expressly not deciding its probative value at this preliminary stage.

The defendants argue that many of the emails do not closely match the plaintiff’s situation and that the plaintiff’s allegations about U.S. rentals cannot be extended to other countries or to Hertz’s own site. They also argue that the plaintiff has not demonstrated an intentional element sufficient to support allegations of dol or malice. The judge agrees only in part: she finds that certain civil-code-based causes of action are not sufficiently grounded, but she concludes that there is a defendable case under the L.p.c. and the Competition Act.

Interpretation of consumer protection and competition provisions

In assessing article 54.4(h) L.p.c. on distance contracts, the court accepts that there may be two contracts: an initial online reservation (potentially a distance contract) and a later in-person rental contract at pickup. The judge finds it arguable that a distance contract was formed when the reservation was made online from Montréal and that, if so, the obligation to disclose the currency in which amounts are payable (when non-Canadian) applied at that stage. The use of a bare “$” symbol on a Canadian website, coupled with the fact that the plaintiff was physically in Québec when reserving, makes it at least plausible that a reasonable consumer would believe the price was in CAD, particularly when other parts of the site used “CAD” codes when relevant.

Similarly, the judge considers it not frivolous to claim that (a) charging a higher price at delivery than the consumer reasonably understood from the booking display, and (b) failing to identify currency clearly, may amount to prohibited practices under articles 215, 219, 224 and 228 L.p.c. The overall “impression générale” of the representations is what matters; a combination of symbol use, site design, and omission of currency codes can be treated as a misleading representation or a failure to disclose an important fact (the currency), which goes directly to price and thus is an essential element of the decision to contract.

Under the Competition Act, the judge holds that the plaintiff has articulated a defendable theory that the defendants “knowingly or recklessly” gave the public false or misleading indications about a material aspect of the transaction (currency of payment) and that this conduct, if proven, could support a civil claim under section 36 based on violation of section 52. However, she clarifies that section 74.01, situated in a different part of the Act, cannot be used directly as the basis for a section 36 civil action.

With respect to punitive damages, the judge recognizes that, at the authorization stage, the bar is low: it is sufficient that the pleadings allege conduct that, if proven, could warrant a preventive or deterrent sanction. The plaintiff alleges ignorance and complete disregard by the defendants for their legal obligations and for the predictable confusion caused among consumers. In light of the flexible approach at authorization, the court finds there is a defendable basis to seek punitive damages under article 272 L.p.c., though whether they will ultimately be granted and in what amount is a matter for the merits.

In contrast, the court finds that the plaintiff’s Civil Code claims based on error, lesion, or dol are not sufficiently anchored in pleaded facts. In particular, the intentional element needed for dol is not clearly alleged, and the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded that, but for the alleged misrepresentation, he would not have contracted at all or would have contracted on different terms, as the Code requires. The judge also criticizes the indiscriminate listing of numerous C.c.Q. articles without tight connection to the factual syllogism and declines to authorize any cause of action under the Code alone.

Definition of the class and temporal, geographic limits

The original proposed class was broad: all Canadian residents who rented or reserved vehicles through the defendants’ Canadian websites or apps since March 8, 2021 and were charged in a currency other than CAD, including but not limited to USD. The court holds that this description must be adjusted to reflect the evidence and legal framework.

First, the judge accepts the defendants’ position that the key period of potential confusion on the Canadian sites arises between 11 April 2023 and 27 March 2024, when the websites were configured to display U.S. prices as “$” without the CAD equivalent or clear indication of USD. She therefore restricts the class period to that interval, noting that prior to 11 April 2023 the currency codes were more explicit, and after 27 March 2024 the use of “USD” or “US$” was added for U.S. rentals.

Second, the court rejects the defendants’ attempt to limit the class to rentals in the United States or to USD only. Although the most acute confusion arises in U.S. scenarios, the judge notes that for some other foreign destinations (e.g., France and the U.K.), the Canadian sites also failed to display any equivalent in Canadian dollars, while hertz.ca did. In the context of the L.p.c. and Competition Act claims, it is therefore not frivolous to argue that non-disclosure of a CAD equivalent for foreign-currency rentals outside the U.S. can also be misleading or incomplete.

Third, the court confirms that a national class (all residents of Canada) may be included. Applying article 3148(1)(2) C.c.Q., as clarified by appellate jurisprudence, she finds that the defendants have establishments in Québec and that the dispute relates to their activities in Québec, notably the operation of Canadian-facing websites accessible from Québec. The fact that individual class members might reside elsewhere in Canada does not preclude Québec courts from taking jurisdiction where the alleged fault and contractual activity (online reservation) are linked to Québec.

Fourth, minor clarifications are made: references to “other charged services” are removed because the action is limited to the rental charges and not to ancillary fees such as taxes or post-rental add-ons; and the class is not restricted to personal-use rentals at this stage, as different legal foundation(s) may apply for consumers and non-consumers, subject to later determination.

Hertz’s role and potential solidary liability

The defendants argued that Hertz should be excluded as a defendant because, in their view, it did not operate the relevant sites in a way that created confusion, and because hertz.ca itself correctly displayed currency equivalents. The court disagrees.

Evidence shows that the Canadian domain registrations for thriftycanada.ca, dollarcanada.ca, and hertz.ca are held by Hertz Canada Limited, and the “Hertz Rental Record #832432090” tied to the plaintiff’s rental is a Hertz-branded document. Additionally, the January 12, 2024 customer-service email responding to the plaintiff’s complaint came from a Hertz employee. At the authorization stage, these links between the corporate entities are enough to support a defendable theory that Hertz is involved both in maintaining the Canadian websites and in administering rentals made via Thrifty, so that it may share liability with Dollar Thrifty for any proven misrepresentations.

The court emphasizes that, at this preliminary phase, it is not deciding conclusively whether Hertz and Dollar Thrifty are jointly liable or in what capacity, but the evidence is sufficient to reject the idea that Hertz has “no link” to the facts in dispute. The possibility of solidary liability thus remains open and is identified as a common question for trial.

Arbitration clauses and unresolved issues

The defendants pointed to arbitration clauses in documents tied to the plaintiff’s reservation and rental, arguing that such clauses oust the jurisdiction of the courts and should, at minimum, exclude non-consumer members from the class definition. The plaintiff responded that, under article 11.1 L.p.c., mandatory arbitration clauses are invalid against consumers and cannot be used to bar consumer claims.

The authorization judge recognizes that enforceability of arbitration clauses goes to the court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae and normally should be considered early. However, she notes complications: there are two distinct sets of terms (including one labeled “Terms and Conditions”) from Florida, each containing arbitration language, and their provenance and applicability are disputed. Given the evidentiary contradictions and the preliminary nature of the stage, she declines to decide definitively on the clause’s validity or scope. Consequently, she does not exclude non-consumer members from the class on the basis of the arbitration clauses, leaving that question for a later phase or for the merits, when a fuller factual record will be available.

Outcome of the authorization decision and monetary aspects

The Québec Superior Court grants authorization to proceed as a class action. Bitton Benjamin is appointed as the representative plaintiff. The authorized class is defined as all residents of Canada who rented or reserved a vehicle between 11 April 2023 and 27 March 2024 using one of the defendants’ Canadian websites, including thriftycanada.ca and dollarcanada.ca, and who were charged in a currency other than the Canadian dollar. The court identifies as common issues (i) whether the defendants violated specified provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Competition Act, (ii) whether class members can obtain compensatory and/or punitive damages and in what amounts, (iii) whether the defendants are solidarily liable, and (iv) whether injunctive relief should be imposed to change their pricing and currency-display practices.

Crucially, this judgment does not decide liability or quantum. It does not award the plaintiff his claimed 523.82 CAD or any percentage of gross sales, nor does it fix any punitive damages or class-wide compensation. Any amounts cited in the pleadings—31% of gross sales, 100 CAD per transaction in punitive damages—remain allegations and prayer for relief, not adjudicated awards. The court also leaves general costs “to follow” the outcome of the merits phase, with the specific note that the costs of publishing notices to class members will be borne by the defendants, without quantifying those costs. As a result, while the successful party at this stage is the representative plaintiff, who obtains authorization and a national class, the total monetary award, including damages, costs, or other sums in his favor or for the class, cannot yet be determined from this authorization decision.