The appeal request from the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League (QMJHL)*, which wished to see the collective action procedure brought against it by Carl Latulippe, a former Chicoutimi Saguenéens player who claims to have been the victim of abuse in the 90s, has just been rejected by the court of appeal.
In a judgment rendered Tuesday, Judge Sophie Lavallée determined that the trial judge who authorized the exercise of a class action against the QMJHL, its 18 teams and the Canadian Hockey League did not err. The procedure can therefore move forward.
The class action request was filed by Carl Latulippe who claims to have been the victim of physical, psychological and sexual abuse after being selected as the first pick in the 1994 draft. The ex-player is seeking $650,000 from the defendants and $650,000 $ in collective punitive and exemplary damages.
Superior Court Judge Jacques G. Bouchard authorized the exercise of a class action in this case on April 10.
In its appeal request, the QMJHL argued that Judge Bouchard had committed “errors of law” by “postponing the examination of the “timeless joint and several liability” of the two leagues and the 18 teams to the debate on the merits. The QMJHL mentioned that 13 of the teams targeted by the procedure were “not even formed at the time of the alleged abuses” by Carl Latulippe.
In her judgment, Judge Lavallée recalls that “the appeal must be reserved for ultimately exceptional cases”. She said the criteria needed to allow an appeal “are not met.” She emphasizes that at the authorization stage, Judge Bouchard “exercised the necessary caution” and “exercised his discretion not to immediately decide this question” of “timeless joint and several liability”. This question “not being a pure question of law, it is not an error at the authorization stage to decide that it will be decided on its merits, in light of the evidence,” writes Judge Lavallée. Judge Bouchard therefore did his job well and “limited himself, as he should, to verifying whether the request (for authorization of collective action) was not untenable, frivolous or manifestly ill-founded.”
