Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m J U L Y 2 0 1 7 35 the class action regimes in common law jurisdictions. According to this rule, the first Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action that is filed will go forward despite other competing claims. However, over the last few months, both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal have agreed to vary the rule by giving the green light to a second claim being flied and by ordering the substitution of the plaintiff in cases where the plaintiffs were found not to be acting in the best interest of the class. 2 Last April, another plaintiff having filed a second claim attempted to do away with the "first to file" rule by arguing that the first plaintiff had no genuine interest in moving his claim forward. 3 Although unsuccessful, the motion entailed an examination of the first plaintiff by another class counsel and led to a reasoned decision assessing the full circumstances of each claim. Although the "first to file" rule is still the law in Que- bec, there is no absolute bar preventing class counsel from attempting to vary its application on a case-by-case basis. Can the defendant be compelled to produce documents before authorization? Since Theratechnologies Inc. v. 121851 Canada Inc. 4 , it is now settled that secondary-market securities class actions brought under s. 225.4 of the Quebec Securities Act call for a dual assessment under both the QSA and the usual class action authorization regime, each subject to a dif- ferent threshold and calling for a distinct evidentiary basis. What is novel is an attempt by a plaintiff to initiate a "discovery-like" phase before authorization has been granted in order to compel the defendant to produce documents to substantiate its theory of the case and assist in meeting the test under the QSA. In Derome v. Amaya Inc.,5 the Superior Court granted a motion by the plaintiff seeking disclosure of certain infor- mation and documents before authorization and ordered the defendant to provide same to the plaintiff for the lat- ter to demonstrate having a reasonable chance of success under the QSA. The Court's rationale was based primari- ly on the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure calling for collaboration between the parties during the litigation as well as on the usual rules of evidence and fairness. The defendant sought leave to appeal that decision. As it did in Theratechnologies, the Court of Appeal has referred the matter to a full bench to deal with both the motion for leave to appeal and the merits of the appeal. 6 Thus, further interesting developments are expected shortly in this evolving field of the law. * * * These recent issues and others may lead to passionate discussions in the courtroom, in the hallway or in a res- taurant among friends. Of course, these topics are always better addressed in a respectful and convivial atmosphere. Cheers to that! "Time will tell if our class action authorization test is currently balanced or prone to further jurisprudential adjustments" 1. 2016 QCCA 1716, Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed, No. 37366, May 4, 2017 2. Badamshin v. Panasonic Corporation, 2015 QCCS 6554 and 2017 QCCA 95;Cohen v. LG Chem Ltd., 2015 QCCS 6463 and 2017 QCCA 94 3. Lepage Forbes v. Procureur général du Québec, 2017 QCCS 1572 4. [2015] 2 S.C.R. 106. 5. 2017 QCCS 44. 6. Amaya Inc. v. Derome, 2017 QCCA 335.

• Cover