Watering down class actions? Not really?

December 1, 2006

Download this publication

Back to the publications list

Stay tuned for the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe to publications

November 4, 2024

La Presse’s Big Gamble Pays Off

Pierre-Elliott Levasseur will always remember a conversation he had in 2010 with Guy Crevier, Editor of La Presse, who was also its president at the time. “The first iPad had just come out. We were both looking at the tablet and, although we didn’t know exactly what to think, we knew we had to do something with this new tool,” says Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, who has been President of La Presse since 2016. The rest, as they say, is history. La Presse’s titanic digital transformation and overhaul of its business model became a case study that has been making headlines for almost 15 years. The last major milestone in this evolution was its change of business model in 2018, when La Presse decided to adopt a not-for-profit structure. This allowed it to diversify its revenue streams by obtaining donations and assistance from the federal and provincial governments, in addition to advertising revenue. Power Corporation would no longer own La Presse, abandoning the business model adopted by the media industry for the past century. This new model also enabled La Presse to become one of the first news media in the country to obtain Registered Journalism Organization (RJO) status. Thanks to this, La Presse can now issue tax receipts to its donors, thus diversifying its income and ensuring its long-term survival. All this was a big gamble in uncharted territory, but La Presse was no stranger to risk taking over the years. Why the change in structure? In a difficult economic climate for media companies, marked by declining ad revenues and fierce digital competition, La Presse has chosen to remain faithful to the principle of free access, which is deeply rooted in its mission. Quality information is a public good, and a public good must serve the entire population, for free. We had to find another business model to increase and diversify our revenue streams. If La Presse hadn’t transformed itself, it wouldn’t have survived. We had no choice but to take the risk. Pierre-Elliott LevasseurPrésident, La Presse Six years later, the gamble has paid off handsomely. Since the launch of the philanthropic model, over 75,000 people have donated to La Presse. La Presse is the largest independent French-language media in North America, with over 500 employees, including 220 in the newsroom. Every month, La Presse reaches 4 million readers, or 60% of Quebec’s adult population. “The quality of the product remained at the heart of all our decisions: we never compromised on that,” says Pierre-Elliott. Human challenges Getting there wasn’t easy. “The expression we used in 2018 when Power Corporation was no longer our owner was ‘we’re leaving the nest.’ We had to find a solution together, because otherwise we’d have gone bankrupt together.” The culture of change that La Presse had developed in previous years as part of its digital transformation was the first step towards success. “It wasn’t our first transformation. But it certainly required a lot of communication to reassure people and convince them that we were heading in the right direction.” Its excellent relationship with the unions was another success factor. “The unions supported us and always acted with us.” In addition to a $50 million contribution to fund the transition, Power Corporation retained responsibility for past retirement plan obligations, which cushioned the risk and reassured employees. Legal challenges On top of the human challenges, there were legal obstacles. In order to convert to a not-for-profit structure, La Presse had to obtain a legislative change from the elected members of the National Assembly. When Power Corporation acquired the newspaper in 1967, the Quebec government passed a law preventing the transfer of ownership to foreign interests. A unanimous vote was required to amend the law. “It was definitely a period of uncertainty. It was difficult to move forward operationally,” recalls Pierre-Elliott. In July 2018, the legislative change was approved, and La Presse became an independent, not-for-profit structure. A few months later, the philanthropic program was launched, and La Presse received its first donations from readers. At the end of 2020, the tax transformation was completed, with the Canada Revenue Agency granting La Presse its Registered Journalism Organization (RJO) status, enabling it to become a qualified donee and issue tax receipts for donations received. Committed donors In 2023, 56,000 donors contributed a total of $7.8 million to La Presse, an increase of 13% over 2022. “We started from zero and have now reached nearly $8 million in donations. This would not have been possible without our loyal donors,” says Pierre-Elliott. La Presse ended the 2023 fiscal year with a positive balance sheet and a $40 million reserve fund. “This fund is designed to ensure La Presse’s long-term future, allowing us to weather economic downturns or technological changes. The fund also allows us to reinvest in our mission and in journalism in Quebec.” Never stop innovating At the same time, La Presse has seen an increase in advertising revenue in a shrinking market. These results can be attributed, in part, to yearly innovations in its advertising product offerings. “Our advertising products are based on data and careful audience segmentation, in full compliance with the industry’s highest privacy standards. We listen to our customers and advertisers to understand their needs before making business decisions,” says Pierre-Elliott. In writing its content, La Presse works with tools used by the world’s leading media, including the BBC and The Guardian, to determine angles for its coverage based on readers’ main information needs: to be informed, but also to have context, to be guided in their lives, and to be inspired and entertained. La Presse’s journalistic mission is supported by a solid business team. For example, La Presse employs specialized technology and business intelligence teams. These two teams have nearly 100 employees working on innovative tools that help La Presse compete ethically and locally with some of the solutions offered by American digital giants. La Presse’s digital transformation and change in business model have been essential to its success. “Our commitment to digital transformation was total. We didn’t compromise.” Today, La Presse has a competitive and strategic advantage that’s hard to rival. This year marks La Presse’s 140th anniversary, while La Presse+ celebrates its 11th. Through many storms, independently and without commercial shareholders, La Presse continues to reinvent itself. Not only has its gamble paid off, but La Presse has also remained true to its mission of delivering quality journalism that’s free and accessible to everyone. And that’s something that will never change,” says Pierre-Elliott.

Read more

Publications that might interest you

May 7, 2025

Upcoming: A New Framework for the Grievance Arbitration Process in Quebec

On April 24, 2025, Labour Minister Jean Boulet tabled Bill 101, An Act to improve certain labour laws, in the National Assembly of Québec. This new omnibus bill proposes some 20 measures to amend legislative provisions, including those regarding the grievance arbitration process set out in the Labour Code. The proposed measures that concern grievance arbitration include the following: Establishment of a maximum time limit of six months to appoint an arbitrator and of one year to hold a first hearing: An arbitrator will have to be appointed within six months of the grievance being filed. If this does not occur, the party that filed the grievance will have to ask the Minister to appoint one within 10 days after the time limit has elapsed, failing which the party will be deemed to have withdrawn its grievance. However, it will be possible for the party to apply to the Administrative Labour Tribunal to have the time limit extended by 10 days if it can show that it was impossible to act. The first day of a grievance hearing must take place no later than one year after the grievance is filed. It will be possible to extend this time limit once only and for a specific number of days if the parties so request and the arbitrator agrees. Grievances filed before these new provisions come into force will not be subject to the new process. The provisions would also not apply to the public and parapublic sectors. Requirement that parties consider mediation before resorting to arbitration and introduction of measures specific to the process. Mandatory disclosure of evidence between the parties within the time limits set at the pre-hearing conference, or, failing that, at least 30 days before the hearing. Two exceptions are provided for: when an urgent situation arises or unless otherwise decided to ensure the proper administration of justice. Proof that a copy of the evidence was provided will have to be sent to the arbitrator. Requirement for the arbitrator to hold a pre-hearing conference when one of the parties requests one. These are just a few of the changes proposed by Bill 101, which also includes several other measures, such as: Measures aimed at maintaining the employment relationship for an employee who is absent because of a public health rule, or because of a disaster, as defined in the Act respecting civil protection to promote disaster resilience (chapter S-2.4). Heftier fines for criminal offences under the Act respecting labour standards and the Labour Code. A requirement for associations to present their audited financial statements at annual general meetings and to make them available to members on request. Measures concerning the health and safety of workers as well as the occupational health and safety compensation system. Bill 101 must go through a number of stages, including special consultations and public hearings, before its provisions come into force. More articles to come on this subject!

Read more
May 5, 2025

Reminder: Canada’s Modern Slavery Act Report Due by May 31, 2025

Many Canadian entities and other entities conducting business in Canada have reporting obligations under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Modern Slavery Act”), which came into effect on January 1, 2024. These obligations include completing an online questionnaire and filing an annual report on the steps taken to prevent and reduce the risk of forced labor or child labor in their supply chain. The Modern Slavery Act applies to government institutions producing, purchasing or distributing goods in Canada or elsewhere, and to “entities” producing goods in Canada or elsewhere or importing goods produced outside Canada or controlling such entities. An "entity" refers to organisations that are listed on a Canadian stock exchange or have a business presence or assets in Canada and satisfy certain thresholds related to assets, revenue, or number of employees. As organizations prepare for the upcoming reporting deadline of May 31, 2025 - a second report for many - they should consider the following: It is useful to review guidelines, which were updated by Public Safety Canada in November 2024 to clarify key terms such as assets, goods, and importer. Failure to submit the report in accordance with the Modern Slavery Act may result in substantial penalties, including fines and potential liability for the directors, officers, and employees involved. The report must encompass a broad range of information, receive approval from the entity's governing body, and include the required attestation. Sufficient resources and time should therefore be allocated to the preparation and approval of the report. In summary, reporting entities and governmental institutions subject to the Modern Slavery Act should promptly review their obligations and gather the necessary information for their reports. Timely and accurate reporting is crucial to avoid legal and financial consequences. For assistance or clarification on compliance with the Modern Slavery Act, please contact Mylène Vallières at mvallieres@lavery.ca.

Read more
April 23, 2025

Election day is soon: What obligations do employers have regarding the federal election?

On April 28, 2025, Canadian voters will go to the polls for the federal election. Now is a good time to go over what obligations employers have under the Canada Elections Act1 (the “Act”) and what penalties apply should employers breach their obligations. Summary Employers are required to give employees who are eligible to vote three consecutive hours on election day to do so, without loss of pay. If an employee were to find themselves unable to exercise their right because of their schedule, the employer must change that employee’s schedule. However, under their management rights, employers are entitled to determine the period during which employees will be given time off to go vote. Management rights must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with applicable provisions of collective agreements, if any. In Quebec, polling stations will be open from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. In addition, employers can in no case force employees to exercise their right to vote in advance. Employers contravening the Act could be fined up to $2,000, but note that certain offences may result in significantly higher penalties. The Act stipulates in particular that no employer may “by intimidation, undue influence or by any other means, interfere with the granting to an elector in their employ of the three consecutive hours for voting.”2 In such cases, offenders may face fines of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for five years. The same applies to an employer who, by intimidation or duress, would attempt to compel or compel a person “to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or registered party, at an election.3 As such, prudent employers should avoid making comments or behaving in a way that could be interpreted by employees as an attempt to influence their vote. Conclusion Election day is fast approaching. Don’t hesitate to contact a member of our Labour and Employment Law team if you have any questions about the application of the Canada Elections Act. [1] S.C. 2000, c. 9. [2] Id., s. 134. [3] Id., s. 282.8.

Read more
April 2, 2025

Application for an interim injunction: Manufactured urgency is not a 9-1-1 emergency

On March 3, 2025, Superior Court Justice Nancy Bonsaint dismissed an application for an interim interlocutory injunction that would allow Les Entreprises de la Batterie inc. to use a property it did not own for major construction work on its building. The judgment serves as a reminder that a party cannot manufacture a sense of urgency and then use that to support its application for an interim injunction. Summary of facts The Plaintiff, Les Entreprises de la Batterie inc., owns a building that has been under construction since March 2021, in order to convert it into a hotel that will serve as an extension to the hotel the Plaintiff currently operates.1 The Defendant owns a hotel and a piece of property adjacent to the building under construction. The property is used as a parking lot for his hotel guests.2 Construction work on the Plaintiff’s building was initially carried out in two separate phases, from March to November 20213 and from August 23, 2022, to July 2024.4 During those phases, the Parties reached various agreements whereby the Plaintiff could use one (1) of the Defendant’s parking spaces, in exchange for compensation.5 On February 14, 2025, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that it planned to begin a new phase of construction (Phase 3) on February 28, 2025.6 The Plaintiff also informed the Defendant that, as part of the new phase of construction, the Plaintiff would need to use half of the Defendant’s parking lot, that is, six (6) parking spaces, and that the entrance to the parking lot would have to be relocated for more than two (2) years.7 Additionally, the Plaintiff pointed out that it would need access to the Defendant’s entire parking lot for a few days in the spring of 2025.8 The Plaintiff alleged that construction work on its building had to begin urgently on February 28, 2025.9 The Defendant objected to having to tolerate such a major disruption for an additional two (2) years, given that he had endured the inconveniences caused by the Plaintiff’s construction work for over four (4) years now, without being offered any form of compensation that would be considered fair or reasonable in the circumstances. On February 27, 2025, the Plaintiff brought anoriginating application before Justice Bonsaint, seeking orders for an interim interlocutory injunction, an interlocutory injunction and a permanent injunction, as well as for a declaration of abuse of process and damages, which was amended on February 28, 2025.10 At the interim interlocutory injunction stage, the Plaintiff asked the Court to issue a temporary order granting the Plaintiff access to the Defendant’s six (6) parking spaces so it could continue setting up its construction site.11 The Plaintiff also sought reimbursement of the professional fees incurred in applying for the injunction. The Plaintiff alleged that the hotel expansion was [TRANSLATION] “a large-scale project with costs in the tens of millions of dollars”.12 The Plaintiff further alleged that [TRANSLATION] “there is an urgent need for the construction work required to repurpose the building and turn it into a hotel to continue, without being interrupted by the Defendant’s actions”.13 The Plaintiff argued that halting construction work on its building would result in delays, significantly disrupting the timeline of the project, which was planned over the next two (2) years. Furthermore, it would lead to substantial additional costs associated with the various extras charged by the contractors it had hired to carry out the conversion and construction work.14 Needless to say, the Defendant opposed the application for an interim interlocutory injunction, arguing in particularthat the facts alleged by the Plaintiff failed to meet the urgency test.15 Those are the facts that Justice Bonsaint took into account when rendering her decision. The criteria for granting interim interlocutory injunctions In her judgment, Justice Bonsaint reviewed the legal principles governing interim interlocutory injunction applications. We will do the same below. The criteria for granting an interim interlocutory injunction are as follows: Urgency Serious issue to be tried or strong prima facie case Serious or irreparable harm Balance of convenience16 It is a discretionary and exceptional remedy that should only be granted sparingly and under strict conditions.17 The urgency criterion Urgency is [TRANSLATION] “of paramount importance”18 in determining whether an interim interlocutory injunction should be granted. If the urgency test is not met, the application simply cannot be allowed.19 Courts often describe the level of urgency required as being akin to [TRANSLATION] “a 9-1-1 emergency”.20 Interim interlocutory injunctions should only be granted in cases of [TRANSLATION] “extreme urgency”.21 For a court to find that the urgency test is met, the urgency must not result from a delay in bringing legal action. It must be [TRANSLATION] “immediate and apparent”—not the product of the plaintiff’s own lack of diligence.22 In other words, [TRANSLATION] “the alleged urgency must be real—not manufactured by the person asserting it”.23 Upon reviewing the case, Justice Bonsaint noted that the Defendant had been made aware only on January 31, 2025, that the Plaintiff would need access to his property for construction work.24 Prior to January 2025, the Plaintiff had not informed the Defendant of its true intentions regarding the work.25 It was not until February 14, 2025, that the Plaintiff officially informed the Defendant of the nature of the access required for the third phase of the project, namely, the use of at least half of the Defendant’s property from February 28, 2025, to March 31, 2027.26 Further to the Defendant’s contestation, Justice Bonsaint noted that the Plaintiff had known for several months that the third phase of the work would begin in early 2025.27 She found that the Plaintiff [TRANSLATION] “had not treated the issue of accessing the parking lot as one requiring urgent resolution”.28 The Plaintiff tried to justify its failure to be proactive, arguing that it had been unable to inform the Defendant of its space requirements before 2025 because the project timeline was still unknown at the time.29 However, Justice Bonsaint found that such explanations simply did not excuse the Plaintiff’s delay in filing its application for an interim interlocutory injunction against the Defendant.30 On the contrary, the supporting documents that the Plaintiff had submitted with its letter dated February 14, 2025, such as a plan of the Defendant’s parking lot and the preliminary project timeline, included references to “2024”.31 Given the above, Justice Bonsaint could only conclude that the Plaintiff had known for several months that construction work on its building was scheduled to begin in 2025.32 On that point, Justice Bonsaint was clear: [TRANSLATION] “The Court understands that preliminary construction timelines may be subject to change, but there is nothing to suggest that construction needed to begin ‘urgently’ on February 28, 2025. . . . the Plaintiff should have taken action as early as January 2025”.33 The Plaintiff had been aware of the access issues involving the Defendant’s property since the fall of 2024—and certainly since January 2025.34 Those issues should have prompted discussions between the Parties’ lawyers well before February 2025, and no later than January 2025.35 Discussions or attempts to settle the matter The Plaintiff also argued that, at the interim interlocutory injunction stage, discussions or attempts to settle the matter could have a bearing in determining whether the urgency requirement was met.36 Justice Bonsaint rejected that argument, given that no real negotiations had taken place, other than failed calls in November and December 2024, and again in January 2025, and that the Plaintiff had been aware of the access issues involving the Defendant’s property since the fall of 2024—and certainly since January 2025. Consequently, Justice Bonsaint dismissed the application for an interim interlocutory injunction, seeing as the Plaintiff had asked the Court to find that such an order, which would grant the Plaintiff access to half of the Defendant’s parking lot for two (2) years, needed to be issued urgently, even though the Plaintiff itself had not considered the need to access the parking lot as being an urgent matter to be resolved before the third phase of construction began.37 Key takeaways The urgency criterion is of paramount importance in determining whether an interim interlocutory injunction should be granted. That requirement must be met for the Court to allow such an application. In assessing the facts and allegations related to an application for an interim interlocutory injunction, the Court must ensure that the urgency is real—akin to a 9-1-1 situation—and not manufactured by the party seeking the relief. A delay attributable to the plaintiff cannot serve as a basis for granting an interim interlocutory injunction against the defendant. Half-hearted attempts at settlement discussions or negotiations do not excuse the delay between a party becoming aware of the facts warranting an interim interlocutory injunction and the filing of the application. Diligence is therefore essential in managing and mounting such cases, making it more likely that an interim interlocutory injunction will be granted. Entreprises de la Batterie inc. c. Biron, 2025 QCCS 608, paras. 1 and 10 (hereinafter the “Judgment”). Judgment, para. 4. Judgment, para. 10. Judgment, paras. 16 to 19. Judgment, paras. 10 to 18. Judgment, para. 27. Judgment, paras. 3 and 27. Judgment, para. 3. Judgment, para. 2. Judgment, para. 6. Judgment, para. 7. Judgment, para. 46. Judgment, para. 47. Judgment, para. 48. Judgment, para. 8. Judgment, paras. 35 and 37 to 39. Judgment, para. 36. Judgment, para. 41. Id. Judgment, paras. 41 and 43. Judgment, para. 42. Judgment, para. 42. Judgment, para. 40. Judgment, paras. 61 and 62. Judgment, para. 62. Judgment, paras. 64 and 65. Judgment, para. 68. Id. Judgment, para. 74. Judgment, para. 75. Judgment, paras. 76 and 77. Judgment, para. 82. Judgment, para. 82. Judgment, para. 84. Judgment, para. 85. Judgment, para. 83. Judgment, para. 90.

Read more