====== Meta Platforms inc. c. Beaulieu, 2026 QCCA 1102 ====== Source: [[https://canlii.ca/t/kmmsz|CanLII]] ---- **Meta Platforms inc. c. Beaulieu** \\ **2026 QCCA 1102** ===== COURT OF APPEAL ===== CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC MONTREAL No: 500-09-032105-264 (500-06-000993-192) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: August 14, 2026 THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.C.A. ^ APPLICANT PARTIES ^ COUNSEL ^ | **META PLATFORMS, INC.** \\ **FACEBOOK CANADA LTD.** | Isabelle Vendette \\ Audrée Anne Barry \\ Mathieu Bernier-Trudeau \\ McCarthy Tétrault \\ Absent | ^ RESPONDENT PARTY ^ COUNSEL ^ | **LYSE BEAULIEU** | Jean-Michel Boudreau \\ Olga Redko \\ Jessica Michelin \\ IMK \\ Absent | SUMMARY: **Application for leave to appeal a judgment of the trial court dated May 12, 2026 by the Honourable Donald Bisson of the Superior Court, district of Montreal** (art. 31 al. 2, 32 and 357 //C.p.c.//). Clerk: Chloé Côté-Sauvageau \\ Room: RC-18 HEARING **Continuation** of the hearing of August 13, 2026 The judge was not in a position to render judgment yesterday, the hearing was continued to today. **BY THE JUDGE:** Judgement - see page 3. %%_________________________%% Chloé Côté-Sauvageau, Clerk JUDGMENT [1] The applicants apply for leave to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court dated May 12, 2026 (the Honourable Donald Bisson), which dismissed their application for pre-trial examination of 10 members of the group in a class action against them. [2] According to the applicants, this application is necessary since the respondent has not been able to clarify several aspects of the underlying dispute, which has prevented them from gathering the evidence needed to adequately defend itself and allowing their experts to form their opinions. They argue that they will suffer irreparable prejudice which cannot be remedied by questioning of the class members later on and that the decision was unreasonable. [3] According to section 587 //C.p.c.//, only the class representative may be subject to a pre-trial examination and it is incumbent on the party which wants to interrogate one or more other members to demonstrate the utility of such an exercise in the determination of the common issues. This decision moreover involves the exercise of discretion by the judge seized of the matter and is an exceptional measure. [4] The judge analyzed applicants' arguments on their application, notably including the fact that pre-trial examination of the respondent confirmed that she was not ready to give sufficient clarity on several central allegations to their position, that she had little to no knowledge of certain aspects targeting one or the other applicant and that she had memory issues. [5] The judge's decision is a case management decision which appeal is subject to leave being granted following the principles provided by section //C.p.c.//. Leave to appeal will not be granted unless the applicant establishes that the judgment was unreasonable in regards to the guiding principles of procedure. This burden is very heavy, as described by Bich J.:
[TRANSLATED] [11] __To be granted leave to appeal as provided by section 32 C.p.c., it is not sufficient to allege that the judgment was unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure, but rather the party must make a prima facie case of unreasonableness.__ It is no longer sufficient to plead an error or argue that another decision would have been better or more appropriate and that the decision appealed would be less convenient. The threshold is necessarily high because otherwise, the appealing party would be circumventing the intention of the legislature who unequivocally desired that this type of judgment not be normally subject to appeal. __Therefore, deference is given to the trial judge who exercises broad discretionary power over matter enumerated by the first sentence of section 32, including evidence. Only in exception circumstances will the Court interfere by granting leave to appeal, and only to protect the one or more of the parties from flagrant unfairness, that is a manifest violation of the guiding principles of procedure. This is what would be considered unreasonable.__
(Underlining added by judge] [6] The judge, at paragraph [17] of his judgment, clearly gave the reasons that the requested examination would not be useful to decide the common issues while accepting that the gaps in the respondent's testimony as highlighted by the applicants. The judge, who is the case management judge, evaluated and analyzed the applicants' arguments and explained why he dismissed the application to subject 10 members of the group to pre-trial examination. Deference is owed to the judge in his exercise of broad discretionary power. [7] The applicants have not convinced me that the decision was unreasonable in light of the guiding principles of procedure. **FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED:** [8] **DISMISSES** the application for leave to appeal, with costs. %%___________________________%% \\ **CHRISTINE BAUDOUIN, J.C.A.**