Supreme Court of Canada

Appeal Heard: November 13, 2019 Judgment Rendered: November 13, 2019 Docket: 38297

Parties

Between:

Volkswagen Group Canada Inc., Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi Canada Inc., Audi of America Inc. and Audi AG — Appellants

and

Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique and André Bélisle — Respondents

— and —

ENvironnement JEUnesse and Quebec Environmental Law Centre — Interveners

Official English Translation

Coram

Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

Reasons for Judgment

(paras. 1 to 3)

Wagner C.J. (Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. concurring)

Indexed as: Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. v. Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique

2019 SCC 53

File No.: 38297.

2019: November 13.

Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC

Civil procedure — Class actions — Authorization to institute class action — Appeals — Leave to appeal — Application for authorization to institute class action to compensate all Quebec residents for environmental consequences of failure of automobile manufacturers to comply with environmental standards — Application for authorization granted by Superior Court with respect to claim for punitive damages, but not to claim for compensatory damages — Court of Appeal denying leave to appeal — Court of Appeal not erring in exercising its discretion.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Bélanger J.A.) 2018 QCCA 1034, 18 C.E.L.R. (4th) 107, [2018] AZ-51504875, [2018] J.Q. n^o 5422 (QL), 2018 CarswellQue 5117 (WL Can.), denying leave to appeal a decision of Dumais J., 2018 QCCS 174, 15 C.E.L.R. (4th) 187, [2018] AZ-51461688, [2018] J.Q. n^o 294 (QL), 2018 CarswellQue 426 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed, Moldaver, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. dissenting.

Counsel

For the appellants: Guy Pratte and Stéphane Pitre

For the respondents: Stéphane Pagé, Éric Bouchard and Dominique Neuman

For the interveners: Bruce W. Johnston and Anne-Julie Asselin

Reasons for Judgment

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

[1] The Chief Justice — A majority of the Court finds that the Court of Appeal judge did not err in exercising her discretion, and the appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.

[2] Justices Moldaver, Brown and Rowe would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the Court of Appeal judge should have granted leave to appeal on the question of law raised by the appellants. They would have remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for a decision on the merits.

[3] Justice Côté would have allowed the appeal with costs.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors

Solicitors for the appellants: Borden Ladner Gervais, Montréal.

Solicitors for the respondents: Bouchard+Avocats inc., Québec; Dominique Neuman avocat, Montréal.

Solicitors for the interveners: Trudel Johnston & Lespérance, Montréal.