The Quebec Court of Appeal has refused authorization for a proposed class action over erroneous Tim Hortons emails telling customers they had won a boat, ruling that the pleaded consumer-protection claim could not turn a post-contest message into a prize entitlement.
In Restaurant Brands International Inc. c. Deschâtelets, 2026 QCCA 1354, decided October 9, 2026, the court allowed the companies’ appeal, overturned the Superior Court’s partial authorization and rejected the application with legal costs. The reasons do not specify a costs amount.
This was a decision about whether the proposed class action could proceed, not a trial awarding compensation or a settlement. No boats, cash prizes or punitive damages were awarded.
A prize recap arrived after the contest
The case concerned the 2024 Roll Up To Win promotion, which ran from March 4 to March 31. Participants had until April 12 to reveal the rolls they had obtained. The official rules included one boat-and-trailer prize, with an approximate retail value of $68,751.
Jonathan Deschâtelets used the Tim Hortons mobile application and participated in the contest. According to the allegations and documents considered at the authorization stage, he revealed 24 rolls and won six instant prizes: a three-month magazine subscription, three coffees and two points prizes. None was the boat.
On April 17, after the contest and the deadline for revealing rolls had ended, he received a recap email indicating that he had won the boat. A recap email was sent to nearly 500,000 people across Canada. That figure describes the national email distribution, not the size of the Quebec group previously authorized by the lower court.
Deschâtelets tried to reach customer service, then received a further message saying the recap might contain errors about prizes and should be disregarded if it did.
He sought delivery of the boat or its value, compensation for the excitement, stress and disappointment, and $10,000 in punitive damages for each class member. Those were claims, not amounts the court found payable.
The legal claim depended on when the statement was made
The proposed action relied on sections 41 and 42 of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act, which concern conformity with a merchant’s statements about goods or services, and section 272, which provides remedies for breaches of the Act.
The Superior Court had treated the contest as an accessory to the purchase of Tim Hortons products. It concluded that the recap was a statement made while the consumer contract was being performed and could bind the companies. It left the companies’ argument that the statement came after the contract, along with questions about the contest rules, for a trial.
The appeal court held that approach was legally mistaken.
Justice Jocelyn F. Rancourt, writing for a unanimous panel, explained that the conformity protection in sections 41 and 42 concerns representations made before or when a contract is formed that influence the consumer’s decision to enter it. Its purpose is to ensure consumers receive what the merchant committed to provide, not to extend that particular protection to statements made after the contract.
Here, the alleged facts and documents left no uncertainty about the sequence. The email was sent April 17, after the April 12 deadline. A trial would not change those dates.
The email also could not have influenced Deschâtelets’ earlier purchases. He had already participated, seen the results of his rolls and received the instant prizes he had actually won. On the facts taken as true, the companies had provided the participation opportunity and prizes promised during the contest.
A low authorization threshold still requires a viable legal claim
The court acknowledged that obtaining authorization for a Quebec class action does not require proof of the case on its merits. The applicant faces a low threshold: showing a simple possibility of success, with a logical connection between the alleged facts and the remedy sought.
Appeal courts also owe deference to authorization judges. But they may intervene when a legal error affects the decision.
In this case, the proposed legal reasoning could not connect the fact that Deschâtelets had never won the boat during the contest to an obligation to deliver it under the provisions he invoked. The post-contest recap did not supply the missing legal basis.
The compensation and punitive-damages claims failed at the authorization stage for the same reason. They relied on the same alleged statutory breach, which the pleaded facts did not establish.
The ruling is confined to that legal theory and the contest chronology before the court. It does not establish a general immunity for inaccurate commercial emails or decide every possible consumer claim arising from an erroneous message.
