The Quebec Court of Appeal has dismissed the various appeals challenging the class action against automakers. The case, which concerns security vulnerabilities in electronic key fobs, can therefore proceed before the Quebec courts.

The plaintiff leading the class, André Lacroix, had his Toyota Highlander stolen on April 16, 2022. The theft occurred while the vehicle was parked at his daughter's residence in Boucherville.

The plaintiff alleges that automakers make their vehicles easier to steal because thieves can easily intercept the signals emitted by electronic key fobs through a technique known as a relay attack.

The class action was filed in May 2024. Represented by lawyers from Bouchard+ Avocats, the plaintiff initially targeted 18 automakers on behalf of approximately 10,000 Quebec consumers whose vehicles were allegedly stolen in each of the three years preceding the filing of the application.

On July 30, 2025, in a detailed decision by the Quebec Superior Court, available only in French, Justice Clément Samson partially granted the application for authorization to institute a class action against 13 automakers concerning a lack of fitness for intended use, contrary to section 37 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The automakers challenged the authorization and, should their appeals fail, sought to have the remedies requested by the plaintiff restricted. For his part, the plaintiff disagreed with the court's reasoning that led it to exclude five of the automakers named in the application.

A discretionary process

Leave to appeal was granted in late November 2025. The parties presented their respective appeals before the Court of Appeal on June 17. Justice Simon Ruel wrote the decision, with Justices Stéphane Sansfaçon and Sophie Lavallée concurring.

Early in its September 23 decision, also available only in French, the Court of Appeal observed that the parties appeared intent on repeating the authorization process by requesting two days of hearings—the same amount of time Justice Samson had devoted to hearing the parties at the authorization stage.

The Court of Appeal reiterated that the authorization stage exists solely to screen out applications that are frivolous or manifestly unfounded in fact or law. All aspects of the legal arguments can be examined at trial on the merits. The authorization process "is largely discretionary." Facts alleged in the application for authorization are taken to be true if they are sufficiently precise. The plaintiff must demonstrate an arguable case against each defendant.

It is not the Court of Appeal's role to reassess the authorization criteria in the same manner as the lower court. The Court of Appeal may intervene only if the trial judge misinterpreted the criteria set out in article 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's appeal

André Lacroix's appeal concerned the exclusion of certain automakers from the alleged breach of section 237. The Court of Appeal rejected his arguments, noting that Lacroix "made the strategic choice to pursue the entire automotive industry through a class action in connection with relay attacks."

To support his case, the plaintiff relied on a study conducted by a German automobile association, the Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC). The association examined electronic key-based vehicle access and starting systems.

However, Justice Samson found that there were no specific allegations or evidence against Porsche, Jaguar Land Rover, Mercedes, BMW and GM. These manufacturers have installed protective measures in their models. Lacroix merely asked the Court of Appeal to repeat the lower court's discretionary assessment.

He also criticized Justice Samson for limiting the class action to relay attacks. The plaintiff described the mechanism used to hack the signal from a vehicle owner's personal electronic key fob. The ADAC study does not address thefts involving physical break-ins or access through a vehicle door to the on-board diagnostics (OBD) port, which allows a thief to reprogram a new key.

"The issue of OBD port security will therefore be examined as an extension of the claim concerning thefts by relay attack and not as an independent cause of action," as the judge specified in paragraph 146 of the July 30, 2025, decision.

The manufacturers' appeals

The manufacturers included in the class action authorized by Justice Samson are represented in the litigation by their Canadian subsidiaries. In addition to Toyota, they are Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda, FCA (Chrysler), Ford, Audi, Kia, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Volkswagen and Volvo.

In their appeals, these manufacturers argued that the plaintiff had not proven that his vehicle was stolen through a relay attack. The Court of Appeal pointed out, however, that beginning at paragraph 106 of his decision, Justice Samson devoted more than 10 pages to analyzing the circumstances of the theft. The manufacturers failed to demonstrate any reviewable error in this regard.

The automakers also challenged the reliability of the ADAC study, arguing that Justice Samson erred in presuming the existence of a security defect in the models listed in the study and in concluding that such a defect existed across their entire fleets of vehicles sold in Quebec.

According to the Court of Appeal, the lower court's reasoning was clear, concise and free of reviewable error. Justice Samson had also indicated that, at the authorization stage, it was not his role "to distinguish between the models covered by the ADAC study and those that were not analyzed." Once again, the manufacturers were merely seeking to reopen the authorization debate, which the Court of Appeal declined to do.

Disclosure

The class action is also based on an alleged failure to disclose an important fact under section 228 of the CPA. For this alleged breach, Justice Samson retained only Toyota, Hyundai, Honda and FCA Canada as defendants. Their owner's manuals had been submitted as evidence, unlike those of the other defendant manufacturers.

According to Lacroix, requiring the submission of owner's manuals for the 14 manufacturers excluded from this aspect of the class action constituted a reviewable error. "Whether allegations are so vague, general or imprecise that they cannot be taken as true is a question of fact subject to the standard of palpable and overriding error," the Court of Appeal wrote. It was found that the judge was entitled to reject the plaintiff's arguments in this regard.

The four manufacturers targeted by this aspect of the class action also sought to have the alleged breach of section 228 dismissed. According to the Court of Appeal, Justice Samson was entitled to find that an arguable case existed based on the absence of warnings in the owner's manuals.

Only a trial on the merits will allow the court to determine whether there was a failure to provide sufficient information. "This debate may include the question of whether exhaustive disclosure of the possible ways to steal a vehicle would be likely to compromise vehicle security," the Court of Appeal wrote in paragraph 59 of its decision.

The Court of Appeal also rejected the manufacturers' arguments concerning Justice Samson's findings on the punitive damages that could potentially be awarded. They also challenged the possibility of a vehicle recall; an option Justice Samson had described as a "remedial measure." The Court of Appeal found that the manufacturers would have an opportunity to respond to these claims at trial.

Separately, Honda, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler had also previously challenged the lawsuit brought by two Quebec insurers.