LThe Superior Court initially refused in 2019 to give the green light to this class action.
But in a decision released earlier this month, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case should be allowed to proceed and that all steps leading up to the trial be overcome.
Therefore, between February 24, 2014 and December 31, 2017, this action was taken for the benefit of all those who purchased a chicken sandwich in Quebec from a subway restaurant. More specifically, the target companies are Canada’s Subway Franchise Systems, ULC and Doctors Associates LLC. The group is represented by Stephen Durand, a lover of the subway sandwich.
50% chicken DNA
He alleged that their sandwiches were misrepresented as “chicken”. This argument is based on a CBC Marketplace report that reports the results of DNA analysis conducted by a researcher at Trent University’s Wildlife Forensic IN Lab. According to them, only 50% of the chicken pieces found in the sandwiches sold by the subway contain chicken DNA, while the rest are made with soybeans, which was reported in the court ruling ‘Call.
The allegations and evidence against Subway are still pending in court.
They will be on trial: a judge will have to decide whether Subway has adequately explained the contents of his chicken sandwiches to his customers or misinformed them or deceived them.
The subway raised a number of reasons to challenge the leave application. Among other things, the request-based DNA analysis report does not have adequate probabilistic value because of the lack of rigor. It was purchased from franchised restaurants in Ontario, but did not specify where the analyzed sandwiches came from. Subway argued that its recipes contained less than 1% soy protein, which was reported in the appellate court ruling.
If action is allowed against the submarine manufacturer, in addition to the punishable damages, everyone who bought them during this period between 2014 and 2017 was asked to repay the sandwiches.
The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, reiterated that for an application for power, the judge should not rule on the merits of the case: he should only decide whether the facts of the case appear to support the conclusions sought. , In short, if the representative has an “arguable case”. Here, the trial judge went so far as to ask from the group representative the burden of proof that he did not need to fulfill at this stage, according to the court.
The court overturned the judge’s decision and authorized the class action.
Subway Canada responded Wednesday through its public relations firm Veritas.
“This decision does not confirm the flawed investigation conducted by Trent University or the unsubstantiated CBC reporting; it confirms that the case can be heard,” the company emphasized in an email sent by Veritas.
“We are keen to stand up for our brand by showcasing facts that prove the quality of our food.”