Class action against Tremblant ski resort

The early closure of ski resorts at the start of the pandemic, in March 2020, had frustrated many season pass holders. Those who frequented Tremblant could receive financial compensation.

Posted at 9:00 a.m.

Marie-Eve Fournier

Marie-Eve Fournier
The Press

The Court of Appeal has just authorized a class action against the 102-piste resort.

The skier Barry Nashen, who acts as a representative of the group, claims a refund proportional to the number of days of which he was deprived of sliding compared to the announced calendar of 113 days. That’s about $150. He also seeks punitive damages of $100 for non-compliance with the service contract, which, he argues, violates the Consumer Protection Act.

In the spring of 2020, Quebec had decreed the closure of the ski mountains as of March 15. Season passes sold at Tremblant allowed access to the mountain that year until April 19.

Barry Nashen had requested a cash refund for the unused days, which he was denied. Instead, the resort’s owner, Alterra Mountain Company, gave him a $50 credit that could be applied toward renewing his subscription the following season.

The class action brings together all consumers who purchased a 2019-2020 “Tonik” ski pass for Mont Tremblant, including those who purchased the “Privilege Package” entitling them to hot chocolates and discounts. Any skier who fits this definition is automatically part of the action without having to show up.

***

At first instance, judge Chantal Corriveau had rejected the request, in particular because the 113 days of sliding announced are not “a guarantee”, but a “maximum”, she had justified. In addition, the consumer is clearly informed by purchasing a season pass that it is non-refundable, “regardless of the reason”, unless they take out cancellation insurance.

However, the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the magistrate imposed on Barry Nashen “too high a threshold of evidence at the authorization stage” in addition to having “analyzed incomplete and contradictory evidence in a more than summary manner to draw “premature” conclusions.

The class action is being led by lawyer Joey Zukran, of the firm LPC, in Montreal.


source site-55