The class action brought against more than a hundred private elementary and secondary schools leaves one wondering, to say the least. Scenting for a good deal, the Champlain law firm, made up of Mr.e Jérémie John Martin and MeSébastien A. Paquette, aims to obtain partial reimbursement of tuition fees paid during the health emergency by some 47,000 parents in the territory of the Metropolitan Community of Montreal. A beautiful exercise in predation which distorts the meaning of collective action.
We must not be deluded into the usefulness of this action. If the plaintiffs succeed, the parents will receive a few hundred dollars, while the lawyers will pocket the jackpot. Private schools will be stuck with a colossal bill, which will be partially covered by their insurers, but which will certainly cause them financial headaches for years to come. Not all private schools are printing boards for banknotes. Some of them are structured in cooperatives. They depend on government funding to keep tuition fees affordable for the middle class.
This action may suit parents who are choosy about the quality of educational services received during the pandemic, a situation that the Western world has not experienced since 1918, it should be remembered. But it will mortgage the future of the schools caught in default.
What exactly do we blame these schools for? From March 13, 2020, with all of Quebec entering confinement, schools have had to deploy treasures of imagination and resourcefulness to teach at a distance. The plaintiffs in the file, whose two children were enrolled at Charles-LeMoyne college, raise problems relating to the conformity and the quantity of educational services received. The decrees forcing the closure of schools and the reduction of the school calendar therefore justify, according to their claims, the partial reimbursement of tuition fees for the period from March 13 to June 30, 2020.
Although the plaintiffs do not allege that the schools acted in bad faith (thankfully), their callous action is a slap in the face to the teachers, school administrators and all the staff members who somehow picked up on them. challenges of distance education. Is this really what the legislator had in mind when he introduced the principle of collective action?
Quebec is going it alone in these matters. Contrary to what is required elsewhere in Canada, Quebec law does not require, at the stage of authorization of the action, that a complainant demonstrate that his request is based on a sufficient factual basis. The judge has little leeway to dismiss an action, and he cannot rule on the merits. Only the most frivolous or ill-founded cases will be rejected.
This action raises questions of law which are far from frivolous. During the 2019-2020 school year, government decrees reduced the school calendar from 180 to 110 days, the hours devoted to compulsory subjects were reduced and the standards for the evaluation of learning were lowered. In these circumstances, why not have reduced tuition fees as well? Government decrees have remained silent on this issue.
The judge who authorized the class action request, Pierre-C. Gagnon, observes that the decrees substantially modified the basic school regulation, without touching a “fundamental” aspect of the contractual relationship between parents and schools, namely the setting of tuition fees. And so it gives way to a debate which will be decided later. The Court nonetheless remains doubtful about the relevance of this action. If the plaintiffs succeed at the end of the trial, it will be necessary to dip into the parents’ left pocket to give them compensation in the right pocket. Such a result would cast “discredit” on the mechanism of class actions, judges Gagnon rightly.
The ball is now in the parents’ court. Once authorized, they are presumed members of the plaintiff group. If they want to dissociate themselves from it, they must do so in writing, by December 10, for the attention of the clerk of the Civil Court, in the judicial district of Longueuil. For the past few days, schools have not been shy about explaining the procedure to parents. It is an excellent idea.
One of the lawyers responsible for the case, Sébastien A. Paquette, denounces the “unacceptable blackmail” of schools and the “colorful and partial” content of their communications, but under what legal standard exactly should they abdicate their right to liberty expression to leave the field open to greedy lawyers? This action is simply immoral and unfair, it must be said.